(first posted 4/8/2013) From 1971 to 1976, General Motors had the market covered when it came to luxy, Broughamtastic land yachts. But at the same time, these offerings did not quite compare to their immediate 1967-70 predecessors. While still very imposing and roomy, they were at the same time less substantial and sturdy. Where was the quality, man? But through fluke or ingenious prediction, they got their act together with the downsized 1977 B- and C-body full-sizers. And if you didn’t want to spring for the high-priced Cadillac version, you could still get nine-tenths of its luxury in a Ninety-Eight Regency–the smart man’s luxury car.
As most of you know, the big, brash–and somewhat tinny–Ninety-Eight was the least expensive way to get into a plush C-body. They were particularly popular in the Midwest among folks who wanted comfort but didn’t want to flaunt their financial status. For 1977, the Ninety-Eight remained part of the Oldsmobile lineup–but as something strikingly different from its 1976 model predecessor.
The 1977 Ninety-Eight Regency was, according to the brochure, “A new luxury car that meets the demands of the times we live in–yet preserves the traditional qualities you’ve come to expect from Oldsmobile.” That was a nice way of saying the new Regency was still comfortable, but had had a lot of blubber removed–much like some of the Baby Boomers who were beginning to get just a bit of middle-age spread and considering taking up jogging.
While it doesn’t sound like any great shakes today, standard equipment on the Regency (the slightly-less lush Luxury Sedan and Coupe were still available) included a digital quartz clock, storage pockets on the front seat backs, sail-panel opera lamps, power windows, power steering and brakes, and an automatic transmission.
As was plainly evident, the downsized Ninety-Eight was much more space-efficient. At the same time, interior room remained much the same as the 1971-76 version, and the trunk held 20 square feet of luggage and odds and ends. The Olds 350 CID V8 came standard, with the 403 available as an option.
The 1978 Ninety-Eight was changed only slightly from the ’77 model. The expected annual grille-and-taillight revisions were in evidence, but that was about it for the year. The Regency, with its Broughamier interior and C-pillar opera lamps, remained top dog: As the ’78 brochure stated, “Regency presents a beautiful marriage of logic and luxury to meet the new demands of our times.” Regrettably, that logic included the addition of a new option for ’78: the now-infamous diesel V8 engine. Fortunately, the previous year’s bulletproof Rocket 350 and 403 engines returned for 1978 duty.
The regency’s interior was the primary reason for purchasing it over an LS. Button-tufted, loose-pillow seating, accompanied by dressier door panels, was the big draw. As stated in the brochure seen above, leather was also available.
Our featured CC is upholstered in the more common (and standard) crushed velour. I imagine driving one of these Regencys was like piloting the streets in your favorite easy chair. All that was missing was the hassock, TV remote and side table with your favorite beverage and snack, although the latter situation could be partly remedied by pointing the Rocket hood ornament into the local drive-in or fast food drive-thru.
Aside from the aforementioned seatback pockets, digital clock and pillowed velour, 1978 Regency interiors also came with a split front bench seat with dual controls and door-opening warning lamps a la Cadillac. In effect, you were getting a Sedan de Ville for about four-fifths the cost–a good deal, to many of us flatlanders in Iowa and Illinois. Perhaps that is why Oldsmobile was king throughout my Midwestern youth. They were literally everywhere–despite the fact that my parents drove Volvos.
With its Broughamy luxury, proven powertrains (well, except for that diesel) and tidy (for a full-sizer) 220.4″ length and 119″ wheelbase, the 1977-79 Ninety-Eights sold quite well. Inaugural 1977 was the best sales year, with 139,423 units finding homes. Sales of 1978 models like our featured white-over-red example dipped by about 20K, to 118,765, while 1979 sales rose by about 10K, to a total of 127,651 LSs and Regencys–not bad for what was a rather expensive car at the time–a 1978 Regency sedan was base-priced at $8,063.
The 1979 Ninety-Eight represented the last year for the original downsized C-body’s sheet metal. As in 1978, only minor trim details distinguished it from the previous year’s model. However, Regencys did get new door panels with even more fake wood than before. Curb weight was up by about 80 pounds–perhaps due to the additional simulated wood-grain.
The LS interior continued unchanged from 1977-78–and today, does indeed look much more palatable to modern eyes. I really, really like the pastel green of the ’79 LS coupe seen above. A one-year-only color, it was also available on other 1979 B- and C-bodies; I’ve seen it on Bonnevilles and Caprices.
Buyers were spoiled for color choices, as you can see above. Available 1978 colors included carmine red metallic, russet metallic, light green metallic, light camel beige, pastel blue and dark blue metallic. Interior colors were just as bright, what with red, blue, green, camel, black and white hues all on offer.
Some new colors, including pastel green, pastel yellow and dark brown metallic (replacing dark carmine metallic), were added for ’79. Yes, in the late ’70s, color selections were much more diverse than today. I mean, look–there’s only one silver! However, many of these late ’70s Oldses were brown or gold–just as so many of today’s cars are gray.
This white Regency with its red interior and vivid red top looked really good to me, although I’d have tossed those Tahoe/Suburban alloys and replaced them with color-keyed Super Stock wheels–with whitewalls, of course! Still, it was a pretty clean survivor, considering the winters we endure around here. And I am VERY glad it hasn’t succumbed to the purple-with-lime-green-trim-and-honking-big-wheels syndrome so many vintage GM luxury cars are saddled with today.
I spotted today’s CC one Sunday last January while driving out to see my folks. I saw a flash of red off to the left and had to investigate. It was certainly a nice bit of color on what was a rather dreary and overcast day. As you might be able to glean from the pictures, the top has been painted–but to my eyes, that didn’t detract from anything. The job was well done, too, though I suspect the brittle plastic of the passenger side opera lamp may have been a casualty of the required dis-assembly. Never mind, I’m always happy to pull over to look at an Olds!
That pastel green would look very nice on a fully loaded Caprice aero back coupe when two-toned with white or cream to me.
I’ve never seen a pastel green Caprice, but this ’79 Delta 88 Royale was available on ebay awhile back.
http://www.mjcclassiccars.com/1979-Oldsmobile-88-Royale-Coupe02.shtml
There is a pastel green 98 Regency coupe that shows up for sale from time to time, I’ve seen it down here is FL, its an odd color in person. kind of like a mint mylanta green.
My grandfather had a ’77 that was pale yellow with the brown leather interior. The most interesting feature was the factory AM/FM/CB radio. This was in the heyday of using CB radios to be warned of the 55 mph speed traps.
The straight-edged, visually-compact lines of this generation C-body were pulled off with elegance on the Cadillac DeVille. But that was the only iteration that really looked ‘right’. The shovel-nosed Buick Electra looked cheap in comparison, and the Ninety-Eight was unfortunately anodyne and characterless. They could have branded the thing a Maytag – the white paint on this example not helping!
I wonder if white was the original color on that car. I do not remember ever seeing a combination like that and I worked for Oldsmobile at that time. Most white cars had black vinyl tops.
Ironically, at least in my zone, the #1 profession for 88/98 owners was school principal. We sold a lot of cars like this to people in the education profession. They were popular as the step-up car for the blue collar crowd who could afford a nicer car but felt that a Cadillac, and even a Buick to some degree, was too pretentious. In those days Oldsmobile were overrepresented by 2 to 1 with various ethnic groups so it is not surprise that they were popular in the Midwest. You could roll past an Eastern Orthodox church in PA or Ohio around 1979 and 1/2 or more of the cars in the lot were Oldsmobile. It is fascinating to read about the demographics of car owners, past and present. Some stereotypes hold true, some do not, and some are just different.
There is a 98 coupe with this same color combo on ebay right now believe it or not.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1979-Olds-98-Regency-Coupe-low-miles-immaculate-/300886697048?_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&forcev4exp=true
Yea but that eBay car as a white top. I don’t remember ever seeing a red top white car live before. Usually it is the other way around.
I saw it yesterday and could have sworn it had a red top……
why does it have such a plain looking door trim?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1978-oldsmobile-ninety-eight-regency-rare-2-door-coupe-/230960297149?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item35c64e74bd#ht_500wt_1182
check this one out to compare
They cut some cost out of these in 1979, even the Cadillac.
On a side note, it appears that the elusive Firenza edition of the Starfire is missing from both color charts. Was it only a 75-77 option?
Either way, the name ‘Oldsmobile Starfire Firenza’ ranks up there as one of the silliest American car names ever (at least in my jaded mind) and is right up there with all of those home-market Asian car names like Mazda Bongo Funtime Smileyface, Fairlady, etc.
And yet, I miss it. Why can’t Lincoln replace their Em-Kay Whatever designations with recycled old names? I’d be willing to consider a Lincoln Starfire Firenza! I know, the heresy – Ford using GM names just would never fly…but, think of the possibilities!
Indeed. It’s almost as if they thought the problem with the late Zephyr, Mariner, and Monterey were the names, not the (*cough* Ford *cough*) cars.
US luxury brands seem to be finding their compass nowadays (eg the latest Chrysler 300 and Cadillac CTS), which makes it all the more odd that they think it necessary to resort to fake-European alphanumerics, when the products can finally speak for themselves.
The alphanumeric names are designed to be forgettable: The conventional wisdom is that you want your customers to say they drive a “Lincoln,” not a “Zephyr” or a “Continental.” Using a jumble of letters to designate the model guarantees that’s so.
One can hope this is just a passing fad, and that a new crop of MBAs will arrive one day with a PowerPoint presentation expounding the virtues of distinctive model names.
My understanding was that the proliferation of alphanumeric model names is due to the automakers interest in marketing cars internationally so that they don’t have to create a different model name for different regions of the world.
I think it’s probably both. The main alternative to alphanumeric names at this point seems to be invented monikers that don’t have any particular inherent meaning, chosen to avoid linguistic and trademark problems in a dozen different languages.
The Starfire Firenza did not come out until Spring of 1978 and was issued its own brochure. The Firenza model appears in the 1979 Small Car brochure.
The Starfire name of course was first used in the early 1960s, Firenza is modified from Firenze which is Florence Italy.
You have to remember, before internet and widespread travel, people liked that sort of thing. People, especially American car buyers, were more connected with their cars and quite often those gimmicks sold cars. Also you have to remember, that until recently, and even somewhat so yet, that the domestic brands had sometimes 10-15 times the number of different models for sale than imports. It was product differentiation. Compared to say, Honda, who until recently basically had Accords and Civics and a few Preludes. That was it a tiny car, a less tiny car, and a tiny sporty coupe. There was nothing more you could say about it. Be thankful we don’t have the Life cars here with various Dunk, Pastel, Zest, Zest Spark, and Diva models.
Starfire is a cool name, and goes well with the Rocket theme (Jetfire is another great name). Firenza is a good name.
But – Oldsmobile Starfire Firenza is goofy. I think GM realized this after a few years because the successor J was simply called Firenza.
Come to think of it, GM really had a fetish with fire. Let’s see if I can name them all: Firebird, Firehawk, Jetfire, Starfire, Sunfire, Fiero (?) and Firemist paint.
Probably not.
I think the Starfire name was first used by Olds on the 54-57 98 convertibles, and then became a separate series in 1961. I remember being unimpressed at the time with the use of that prestigious name on the unworthy Firenza.
In the interest of correct information I started the PA/MD chapter of the OCA in 1984. Starfire was first used in 1954, here is a pic from the Fusick Oldsmobile catalog (vintage Olds parts) of the script Olds used in ’54/55. Starfire 98s were only convertibles at the time, expanded to coupes in the ’60s and rather unfortunate small crappy cars by the ’70s.
hate to say it, but I think it’s sexy. I would love to cruise in that car on a scenic highway somewhere, preferably one with the least amount of curves. I also dig that red on white color scheme. I really am amazed after looking through this website how many old American POS’s are still on the road. The only European company that comes close to the big three is Mercedes. Nary do I see an Audi older than 1998, BMW older than 1994.
I liked the 1980-84 versions better.
+1. These have good points but I can’t help but think the styling seems a little unfinished, especially compared to the 80-84’s. I really like the peaked front fenders though. My guess is that these are supposed to resemble the Deville of that era more than anything, at least at a glance.
Me too. I always liked the squared-off, formal look of the 80-84 coupes best. I’ve seen this image a million times and love it.
I had a neighbor who had one in dark navy with a matching dark navy vinyl cap roof, and I thought it was absolutely stunning. I’ve wanted one ever since, and would choose it over a Coupe Deville.
Several have complained that the 80-84s have a droopy, shovel-nose front end. That has never bothered me – I always thought that it looked sleek and elegant.
I thought it was a very clean design myself. The recessed headlights on the earlier models gave it more of an aggressive, dynamic look but I can’t find fault with the later design. I always thought it was a clever styling trick how they did the side markers. If you look at the side of the car it looks like it protrudes in front, like the late 70’s Caddy’s and Lincoln’s have until you see it’s flush with the front end. When I first saw these cars as a kid that fooled me at first.
Why do you guys always remove the clue posting from the recent post lists once the CC has been revealed?
It’s interesting to see what everyone has guessed. No harm in keeping it part of the same thread.
To make more room on the front page. It’s been proven that many visitors won’t go past the front page of a blog web site. But we don’t remove it totally, just push it back a couple of pages. It’s back there now.
Thx for the reply. This website is at the top of my favorites. The commentaries from contributors such as yourself are so interesting. The posts from visitors are far and above much more mature that most sites I visit. I have rarely seen so many people contribute to the topic at hand without resorting to petty squabbles.
I have learned a lot about cars from this site because of all of the above.
Thank you for such an excellent site!
Thank you!
My 1978 Buick Park Avenue was the same car with different frosting.
I mentioned before that my daily driver is a 77 98 Regency.
Simply my favorite vehicle to date.
Yes those seats are unbelievably comfortable. And I still am amazed at how well the velour wears. Only now, 36 years later and about 169,000 miles is the driver seat starting to show some wear. Just cleaned the carpet this past weekend and it still looks great.
It’s a car I can work on and you don’t have to remove the dash to change the heater core.
The 403 is a dream. Supposedly no horse power but gobs of torque.
Once I could no longer find white walls, I put mags and white lettered tires on her.
Nothing oversized. Add a custom flowmaster exhaust and it’s kinda like having a muscle-car lux mobile.
Just a great car for exploring the back roads and main streets of New England.
I had an ’86 Cutlass Supreme Brougham (!) – a “mini” 98 Regency. Olds 307 and was able to give it a little more “oomph” from a cat-back, Y-pipe 2 1/2″ with Flowmasters (also gave it a more pronounced Oldsmobile baritone rumble!).
Cherry little-old-couple from upper Kalihi (Honolulu) special bought in April of 1996. Ten years old at the time; shot a/c unit and peeling aftermarket window tint, but very cherry. Rebuilt said a/c unit, replaced (then de rigeur) sagging GM cloth headliner, shipped it to Oakland and drove cross country to Cleveland by way of Phoenix, St. Louis, Tidewater, Virginia and up to Cleveland. Sold it to a very greatful retired Ford foundryman. His son bought it for him and that guy was all smiles. I waved good bye to it as it rolled up Memphis Avenue in Cleveland bound for the East Side, wire wheel covers and it’s Flowmaster exhaust rumbling away . . .
These were great cars, in my opinion the pinnacle of GM Sleddom. The were comfortable, roomy and drove surprisingly well. There was no float and wallow with these cars at all. Sure, nobody was going to autocross one but in the kind of driving the buyers of a 98 would do, the car handled very well. The Olds 350 moved the car along just fine and I never thought the 403 was worth the extra fuel consumption.
These were also reliable cars; the electrics were excellent. The only problem with them was the confounded GM auto a/c. Once if failed, you could never get it to work right.
At the moment there is a kid on Craigslist trying to sell one for only $1400 but no takers. Few people in Vancouver would have a place to park it.
These cars will always remind me of my childhood. My mom had the ’77 Electra 225 sedan plain Jane model and a neighbor of ours had the ’77 Sedan de Ville, also plain, although it cost a few grand more than my mom’s car. If I remember correctly (too young for specific memories), my mother looked at the DeVille but the $$$ per month were a little too high. I remember the Buick was $8600 in ’77. I guess it had all the basic seventies luxo items: pw/pdl/p seat/stereo/tilt/defog. IIRC, I think she was a little peeved about our neighbor’s DeVille, thinking they bought it just to “top” her.
The Caddy had a lot more engineering in it and was, in my opinion, actually worth the extra money in 1977. Open the hood of a Sedan de Ville and look at all the gusseting and bracing there is, for all to see. In fact there is extra structural reinforcement in the whole car. The transmission was a THM400 and the 425 Cadillac engine made 330 lb/ft of torque.
Still, both are great cars.
Good observation, Canucklehead. Those differences began to wane come the 1980s . . . . especially the POS 4.1 V-8. (Cadillac).
Well, how on earth 330 lbs of torque in a 4200 pound car could translate into such a slow sled is beyond me. Maybe it had just as much to do with the paltry 180 hp and a tranny with 3 widely spaced gears.
I remember gunning my dads 78 SDV when I was a teenager, and even in the malaisey dog days of the early 1980s it felt and was slow…
Having rear axle ratios as numerically low as 1.76 don’t help either. More common is the 2.14 and much more common is the 2.29… 60 mph in 1st gear? No problem!
Growing up, my friend’s dad had one of these, in white with white top and tan leather. They called it the refrigerator. My parents had a ’77 Sedan de Ville, and I remember thinking that the Olds was just as nice, and never understood why GM offered so many models that were so similar. But there were a lot of all of them on the road, so I guess it worked, at least for a while.
Like mcc.pj said, I thought the Cadillac versions were the best looking of the 77-79 models, with their distinctive fender/hood treatment. As similar as the 98 and Electra were to it, they looked a bit bland. The restyle of 1980-84 made the 98 and Electra look much better.
The feature car is quite striking in that cool color combo. While perhaps 9/10s of the luxury of a Cadillac, the 98 C-body was not 9/10s of the size as many people believe. The overall length of the 98 was 221.4 as Tom says. The Cadillac was 221.2 for 1977. After the facelift in 1980 it was 221.0.
Despite being fractionally shorter the big Caddy rode on a longer wheelbase than the 98 which, for me anyway, gave a more balanced look.
The more that modern cars remind me of Salvador Dali paintings or the TR7, the more I appreciate the rational body design of this generation of GM cars & some others of the period; they look just as good to me now as then. Minus the Baroque trim, upholstery, & accessories, of course.
What really stands out for me is the rock work behind the car! At first glance, I assumed it was fake. But a closer look suggests that it’s the real thing. Nice. Who would do that nowadays?
Its not that nobody can do blockwork like that, its more paying for it to be done now that prohibits facades like that.
You buy it in sheets now a days although given the age of the build that façade was probably original.
http://www.newenglandbrickface.com/stoneface.php?uid=69240e854987a384b74d94b895a66c59
That stone is indeed real, it was part of a recent facelift of that building.
The basic 3 box design of the RWD full size and luxury cars created by Bill Mitchell and crew in the late 70s has worn extremely well and still looks good today.
To me, the 77-79 iterations didn’t look Broughm-y enough but that’s a personal matter (I prefer the chromier and more formal 80+ version, while others don’t), but simple fact is in 77 GM updated a classic design that could still work today had they not mucked it up in the early 90s.
Another personal taste issue is the formal roofline adopted from the 1st gen Seville introduced across the board in 80. I like it lots, but then I also like the sportier roofline of the 77 too. The Ninety-Eight coupe roofline looked especially good with the vinyl top.
Agreed; GM threw the baby out with the bathwater. There is no way they should have given up on big, RWD cars. As the Lincoln showed, there was a large market for land yachts right through the 1990’s.
Thing of a RWD Oldsmobile of today, unit body, 3.6 V-6 with V-8 option, excellent interior, 115″ wheelbase and 200″ length, coming in at about 4000 lbs. They wouldn’t be able to keep them on the lots at $40k.
So your saying a sightly smaller 1984 Delta 88 would still be a good seller today at $40K…….
Right. GM still kept selling BOF cars through 1996, really they weren’t selling that well even then, except to police, hearse and taxi use. Except for the mid to late 80’s blip increase in full size cars sales, they were on a downward slide ever since 1979 oil embargo, what they should have done is not downsize the FWD C-body cars so much in 1985, a little more length would have prevented the “popemobile” roof lines
With the exception of Cadillac, I thought the downsized C & H bodies came off very well. They were popular with the regular buyers, it was the 1991 & 1992 redesigns that were disasters for Oldsmobile in particular. Buick’s 91/2 redesigns were popular as was Pontiac. They did better when they started sporting up the Bonneville (like with the SSE). I disliked the space age look that Oldsmobile was going to then and left the division. The downsized Cadillac was not nearly the disaster as the E/K redesigns, of course they were upsized for 1989. But Cadillac was caught a little flatfooted when the redesigned European cars started to come out making them look more substantial and the Japanese premium imports came out which made the Cadillacs look very dated. The 1992 E/K cars rectified that a lot and the 94 deVilles looked “bulkier” despite not really being that much larger.
For the traditional Oldsmobile “Brougham” buyer the new Cutlass, 91/92 models, Achieva was all a bridge too far.
I personally think if Olds would have stuck to a more traditional car design, marketed themselves as a value product they would have continued to do well. The Alero and Intrigue were pretty good cars but by the late 90s stand alones were dropping like flies and GM would not allocate any more money to new product. I am rather bitter about the whole thing quite frankly. I think Canuck’s rationale wouldn’t work as you said the full size sedan market basically disappeared (hauling duties being taken over by minivans and SUVs and the WWII generation that loved that concept were dying off) but I think if they would have kept to a more conservative formula they might have survived.
I remember as a young boy admiring how much nicer looking and driving these cars were compared to the large Fords and Chryco’s at the time. They must have sold like hot cakes too as a C-body car could be seen around most any parking lot or side street. I always preferred the Rocket 350/403 engines to the thirstier Cadillac 425 or the Buick 350 with it’s external oil pump for the 77-80 run. After that it was even more clear cut when Caddy introduced the 8-6-4 and then the HT4100. The 98/Park Ave still used tried and true Rocket power but in lower output but just as reliable 307 form.
Time for me to start urinating on the brougham parade, here.
I look at those interior shots…”loose-pillow” indeed. And in Cathouse Red…or did they find another name for it, that year? Anyway…imagine eight years of dirty derrieres; nasty jeans after a hot day doing whatever; funky suit-seats after a day hard sitting at the office. And, depending on the age of the owner, maybe some hot-and-heavy action in the back seat; or maybe even some quick changing for beach activities?
Raw arse + non-washable permanent crushed velour = BIO HAZARD. At the VERY least…it’s going to have, how shall I say, a certain air about it. How many of us have gotten into someone else’s car, a rental or a used car, on a hot summer day in the sun…and the fumes just hit you like a blow under the ribs?
Of course that’s probably why today we have gray synthetic non-absorbent cloth seating…it’s bland and boring, but, you know what? I think, in the end, it’s progress.
Agree completely. Who cares how decorative a surface is which is covered by one’s posterior & back? it’s funny how otherwise frumpy Middle Americans who probably wouldn’t think of decorating their just-for-show living-rooms this way were shameless in opting for pimp decor in these cars.
What was needed was M-B W114 interiors inside [quality-controlled] GM B/C-bodies & mechanicals.
All you had to do is rent the Rug Doctor once a year and clean it. We did it loads of times on our taxi cabs.
The interiors of these cars were great and customers loved them. These cars sold well and made big profits for GM. If you didn’t want loose pillow, you didn’t have to order it.
A 98 with loose pillow is probably the most comfortable highway car I have even driven. At speeds less than 120 km/h the cars were real long distance masters. They were so large you could really spread out and move around, keeping fatigue to a minimum. I could easily empty the gas tank on one without stopping. I can’t do that on my Acura.
But then again, I am also 20 years older….
My 1997 trip cross-country in the Baby Brougham/98 (Cutlass Supreme) was non-fatiguing in every way. It had a loose pillow velour interior. Ate up the higway. 23 mpg on the open highway with the a/c on too at 65-75 mph. Plus the wig-out factor of people seeing a car licensed in Hawaii in Pigsknuckle, Missouri.
I once had a 1987 Cutlass Supreme Brougham and a couple of trips from Florida to Michigan and back were absolute delights. After long stints of driving I always felt refreshed at the end of the day. I can’t say that about many cars today…
I’ll nominate the new Challengers. I did 2,650 miles in three days in mine. I’m working on a piece about the trip for the site. Just need time to finish it.
You guys must be old fat guys with colitis that drive around in your drawers only? That doesn’t make sense. Every seat surface is subject to the same exposure to dirt and wear and tear. Vinyl is probably the easiest to maintain followed by leather as far as cleaning dirty and keeping things sanitary. Most people back in the day buying pillow velour seats were not getting into them particularly dirty nor are collectors that have them now.
It is not particular hard to clean those seats as has been said by others a little green steam machine will do wonders or a rental from Rug Doctor with regular upholstery or carpet cleaning solution will do well. The key in doing that is making sure you do it on a nice warm dry day when you can leave the windows (or doors) open for an extended period of time. If you don’t you will not only get yourself wet but it will smell. That plus getting an upholstery comb will smooth the nap of the surface.
A major part of the attraction to American cars was the comfort level of the interior which increased to baroque levels in the 1970s. That is something the Europeans and Japanese have never been able to touch (although I am not entirely sure they ever really tried). Of the cars I own (or have owned) the 50/50 pillow leather (pillow on top AND bottom) in my 81 Imperial have been the most comfortable long distance seats I have ever sat in. There is simply nothing like getting in the car early in the morning, driving 8 hours, arriving at the destination, getting out of the car and going about your business like nothing happened and not having to take the rest of the day or night to recover from the experience. Leather can be very comfortable, but cloth is most comfortable especially for long journeys.
Back in the good old days you could climb into a car like that, have your beer and cigarette and hit the road and it would like heaven. So much you put a license plate in the front that reads “My Other Woman.”
Maybe.
Just for giggles, though…wander through a used-car lot in high summer. When you find a well-used car with the Hoor’s Boudoir decor option…open it up and breathe deeply.
Unless the lot is a top-tier reseller, the odds are that the funky stench will give you the heaves.
Should be pointed out…that the source of colitis, to put it delicately, is hardly the source of the funk. Just sweaty skin, on sweatier pants, rubbing against that skin all day…all that sloughed-off tissue, all those oils, all that sweat…onto your velour.
I think considering the age of these cars now, especially if you’re an enthusiast of these, one of the first things anyone should do is clean the interior. I bought my ’83 Olds 98 with around 120k and the first thing I did was remove and disassemble the seats hosing them down (carefully so the foam doesn’t become saturated)with laundry detergent and water, same with the carpet, draping it over a railing. They weren’t bad to start with but with that being the highlight of the car, I wanted to be able to really enjoy it and have it as clean as my furniture in my house. It all came right back and smells great. Drying them out completely took some time but it was worth the effort. Bandaid fixes like Febreeze or that foaming cleanser aren’t good enough if you want to do it right IMO.
Two words for classic velour in the modern age…Scotch Guard.
Seriously. I had my Cutlass seats treated with numerous coats of the stuff, and I think I could have hosed the interior out if needed. A couple of times while living in Florida I had milkshakes turn over in the seat. It would have to sit for a day or so in the hot Florida sun. A damp wash cloth was all it took and you could never tell that anything had happened.
Its whorehouse red sir…..
JPT’s remark is just the reason why I’m having my ’72 Delta 88 convert’s seats recovered in marine-grade vinyl.
Everything he said in the first paragraoh, PLUS being directly exposed to the hot sun when the top is down.
The cloth seat material in many of today’s cars is pure cheap lowest bidder garbage and doesn’t even remotely compare to the older cars. The stupid light tan and gray are nearly impossible to clean and keep clean. Literally every water spot sticks out like a sore thumb. And the harsh cheap fabric feels like sand paper on your legs in the warmer weather wearing shorts. And why do today’s seats have to be so damn hard?
Just had to say that JustPassinThru’s post, and the subsequent responses in this thread, have me laughing out loud. Unfortunately, the mental image of a sweaty old fat guy easing himself into one of those whore-house red crushed velour seats is now burned into my head. I used to think these seats were the most comfortable thing on the planet, but now, I’m going to think twice if I ever have the opportunity to sit in one of these again. On the plus side though, I now have a reminder why it is that I have to put up with the rock-hard seat in my Altima on a daily basis. So thanks for that, I guess….
Very rare cars here but in saying that there was one on the lawn of a nearby Black Power house, they moved and its gone so I guess it still was a runner though nobody drove it while it resided in my street. That was prior to CC getting started so I had no reason to shoot it, Sorry.
I do love these, I’ve talked many times about the 1978 model my grandmother had. I’ve always been attracted to the fact that this was the last time you could get a 400+ cubic in V8 in a mid-priced American sedan.
I’ve finally experienced the CC Effect: this handsome machine came into view as I rounded the corner in the McDrive-thru line this morning! It looked to be a 1977 and a heavily-optioned one at that.
It was equipped with leather upholstery not to mention the obvious rare chrome wheels, cornering lights, etc. It also appears to have a very nicely executed dual exhaust setup on it. I’d have loved to have done a walk-around but was late for work. Interesting vehicles are very rare in the Durham/Chapel Hell NC area so it was quite a treat for me.
I was expecting this to be an older white guy car and was quite surprised to see a very attractive African-American gal in her twenties leave in it. The car was silent as it pulled away. An older woman & acrobatic young child were the other passengers. I guess I’ll just have to wonder if she was just driving her mother’s car, husband’s car, or if it was hers.
As a young child our next door neighbors also had one of these in triple white (with white leather interior!) — in retrospect it was stunning. This was Illinois and the white car was starting to rust so its owner painted it red. He did an excellent job and the red/white still looked great….(I’d have kept it white though).
The big Olds is at the top of my post ’77 B-body list and it’s nice to see a Ninety-Eight featured. Thanks Tom 🙂
That car also has the rare style chrome plated steel wheel option which was rarely seen on 98s. The picture below is what it should have looked like originally you can see the centers are missing on the subject vehicle.
I am not going to speculate as to the reasoning behind the driver having possession of that particular vehicle – but I will say that during those years Oldsmobile purchases among minorities of all kinds, including ethnics, was running well over 2 to 1 as a percentage of the population. Oldsmobiles were very popular among the historically disadvantaged groups who managed to do well and could afford a nice newer car.
It always strikes me as funny that these were “downsized,” but at 220 inches long they’re the same size as a 1962 Ninety Eight. Otherwise cars never should have gotten bigger than they got in 1962.
Also cars should have never gotten pillow top velour seats. I wonder if a corresponding rise in the popularity of Chiropractors came along with the proliferation of broughams…..
I agree on the size, I never cottoned to most 71-76 cars aside from the Fleetwood Brougham mainly because of sheer extravagance of some of the models like the Talisman.
As far as the pillow seats, well it was a matter of taste. Americans in those days wanted big comfortable cars and that is what they got. Plus the WWII generation that drove a lot of domestic sales were starting to age then and the market fulcrum favored conservative comfortable cars. Plus the 1970s were all about disco, flash, glitz and glamour. People’s styles of clothes and home decorating reflected that. Gold chain lamps and vermeil were all the rage in living rooms if GM could have figured out a cost effective way of doing it, there probably would have been a gold lame interior option offered.
By far the most elaborate (but maybe not the plushest) interior of 70s would be the Monticello interior Cadillac with a paisley-like style of shirred velour matching tubular armrest, matching available pillow and robe. No joke. I am not sure the absolute comfort level was any more that the article’s car but the look was off the chain for sure.
The Lincoln Mark V Diamond Jubilee Edition was pretty elaborate as well and it came with a matching umbrella and keys with matching wood inserts (and you got a special DJ cookbook!). Definitely products of their time.
The 81-83s with leather came with a promo kit like this. No cook book though…
Whats in the Diamond Jubillee cook book?
Hank the Deuce’s favorite drinks?
Lido secret spaghetti and clams?
the infamous Brougham Burger?
Well, here you go, play the slideshow and enjoy:
http://www.lincolnmarkv.com/LincolnMarkV/Diamond_Jubilee_Cookbook/Pages/DJ_COOKBOOK.html
It appears to be a series of the recipes from the Ford Times over the years. I assume they gave it away with the Lincoln DJ and most likely you could buy it separately.
never was impressed with this interior, I’d go for the previous versailles velour interior
Yeah, I get that people, the vast majority of people of the US, as GM controlled 50% of the market wanted cars that were just as isolationist as the suburban tract housing they lived in.
Doesn’t make it any less tacky though. Nothing makes me wanna go “Tina, Bring me the AXE!” than a Brougham interior.
Every era of car sort of has its “thing” in the late 50s and early 60s it was the fin and the rocket ship look, the mid/late 60s it was the sheer look with the huge but transparent size cars were large but not bulbous. Corners were sharp and the 3 box structure was prominent. 70s were more rounded again “fuselage/tumblehome” and usually adorned with every ornament known to man. The 80s were all about technology, FWD, digital dashes, talking cars, fuel injection, transverse engines. 90s I guess I would chalk up to the age of the egg when cars when from being just downsized boxes but all seemingly starting from a clay egg and working from there. Like any fad it can go overboard and all the domestics were doing it. Even Toyota got into the Broughamy thing a wee bit I have seen more than a fair share of early 80s Corollas and Camrys with vinyl tops and hood ornaments.
For the record I totally agree with Laurence. My Dad bought a new 78 Mark V Cartier Edition with the leather interior and I was so grateful he also did not like velour, pillows, etc. (well, he raised me right!) I didn’t even like riding in cars with these interiors but then I’ve never liked cloth seats of any kind, period – only vinyl up to the point where I could afford leather. Good that we’re all different, however; the world is more interesting that way.
Even I prefer the leather or just nice cloth to velour–in that case I am not quite the Brougham Guy that Richard Bennett is 🙂
Love this.
http://automotivemileposts.com/cadillac/cadi1975interiortrim.html
it is a wacky interior. Cadillac’s brochure takes a jab at them. 😉
The new ornate Monticello Velour upholstery for 1975 features Cadillac’s exclusive shirred stitch technique. Less dramatic, the Moselle Knit material was available at no additional cost for more restrained customers.
You mention a robe? Like a bathrobe?
This may be my favorite post-1976 GM B or C body car. It may not be quite as perfectly styled as the B body 88, but it makes up for it by having more room and nicer trimmings.
A friend’s father bought one of these at about a year or two old. It had the 403, and I recall that he had an issue with rough-running at a certain rpm that he could never get satisfactorily solved, as I recall.
I always thought the biggest rap on these was they did not look sufficiently more expensive from the outside over an 88. This was remedied on the 1980 restyle, and there was no question that the C body was the bigger, more expensive car. However, I still prefer the more upright front end on the 77-79 over the shovelnose on the 80-84.
They were similar, but as I recall most 88s were modestly equipped while 98s were well-equipped. It was common until the FWD H body came out to have manual windows and basic interiors on the Delta 88. On the 98, in addition to plusher seats, you got the Cadillac like armrests with mounted switches, additional courtesy lights and sound deadening. It did feel like a different experience somewhat.
I’ve even seen a few crank window H-body LeSabre and Delta 88’s, Bonnevilles too.
As CC’s resident Captain Brougham, it goes without saying that I approve!
Of course, like others have said the Chevy truck wheels need to go.
I have driven a lot of cars, and I have to say that these Brougham type of cars are by far the most comfortable I have ever been in. Not all cars need to be sports cars. Sometimes it’s just nice to be able to have a comfortable isolation chamber to climb into after a hectic day at the office and just enjoy the ride home.
Amen brother! That’s just the reason why I love them myself, like an oasis on wheels. That red interior might be loud to some but to me, especially on a bitter winter day it’d seem warm and inviting to get into while you crank the heat up.
+2
I could care less about German/Japanese driving/handling/”excitement”/whatever after a workday full of corporate politics and…PEOPLE. 45 minutes of full-sized “old” domestic goodness gives me peace that no other type of vehicle ever could…and I’m usually feeling a bit more relaxed as I pull in the driveway.
Love it! Comfy, classy, big, stylish. I wish they made cars like this today!
A good friend of mine in high school had a 98 from this generation. It had been repainted due to issues with the original paint, and it didn’t have a vinyl roof when I saw it. I don’t know if the top came off when the paint was done, or if it was an LS. In my memory, it seemed pretty restrained compared to this car. I don’t think it even had wire wheel covers. It did have the 403 though, which surprised me when I looked under the hood. I didn’t realize these could be had with anything over 5.7 liters, and by ’86 it was unusual to see a GM car with more than a 5 liter engine. It wasn’t particularly fast, but it did out drag a classmate’s ’57 Chevy 4-door.
We had some memorable times with the big Oldsmobile. Some are better not documented, but it was fun rolling up to some of the spots where teenagers congregated to break the law. They’d scatter, because the light signature of the Oldsmobile was the same as that of the Dodge Diplomats and Plymouth Gran Furies that the local police were using at the time.
Good brochure WTF moment in the top photo, how did that black 98 get into the garden party.
Powerslide of course.
Tom, you and I sure like a lot of the same cars. Just this week, first the ’86-92 Toronado, and now the ’77-79 Regency. Two of my favorites! Keep ’em coming!
I guess most of you had better experiences with GMs of that era. My dad had a 77 Olds Delta 88 Royale. While it looked good at first, the glow quickly faded.
Had the 350 with 4-barrel carb. Man that thing was a dog. I know part of it was the anemic engines of that era but turned out that GM was putting trannys meant for their four-cylinder cars into full-sized models. Ours was one of the lucky ones that got just such a combination.
All sorts of interior bits started falling off or fading/peeling. The air conditioning failed after a couple of years, and so on…
Probably the best thing that happened to it was that it was T-boned in an accident and we got a decent settlement when it was totaled.
Sorry to be such a downer, but to me this one GMs worst examples of engineering…and I consider myself a GM fan
1978 Oldsmobile Regency 98 (dark green metallic, green velour interior): my first car, and to this day, my favorite…
Last summer I actually seen a light metallic blue ’77 Oldsmobile 98 2 door in great condition and they wanted like $5000 for it, can’t remember what the engine was, I thought these cars were a big improvement over the 1974-76 Ninety Eight’s
This was IMO the last of the real Oldsmobile’s
Anyone know where the best place for me to sell a 1977 Olds 98 Regency? I inherited it from my mother, and its in good shape.
Come join us at The Brougham Society on Facebook…your car would be a perfect fit for the people there!
Where can i buy new pillowtop seats for a 82′ 0ldmobile ninty-eight regency
Since I drove one of these cars once, I don’t want to drive anything else. My current car is a 1977 Oldsmobile 98 Regency Brougham with the 403 cui engine. I know that this isn’t the biggest car ever build but still here in Germany it is except for older american classics. Considering that this car is pretty heavy and not made for high speed cruising, it got a decent gas milage ( 16-20 mpg) which is important because gas is more expensive here ( 6-7 per gallon). And it is not slow, it is not fast either but it goes pretty good on the Autobahn where it could pass the 110 mph mark but I prefer to keep it at cruising speed. It is amazing how smooth the ride is and how easy repairs are. In comparison to modern luxury brands like Audi, BMW, Lexus and Mercedes, the Olds looks like the real deal. In my opinion, these were one of the last decades of real cars and not computer controlled plastic things where minor damage or repairs cost like 2000 bucks.
As long the government doesn’t ban these old barges I am going to drive those beautiful cars.
Front picture
Rear Interior
I need to find the firethorn red velour fabric for my 1978 Oldsmobile 98.
I’ll say it.
These cars were too square.
They sold millions of them over the next decade or so, Ford copied the look, Lincoln copied it. But these cars didn’t look as good as a Volvo, known for its squareness of lines, or even the first generation Seville. These cars were cartoonish in their Kleenex-box proportions. The Oldsmobile was the worst offender. It looked like it was designed by a team of pallet makers with a plumb-bob. The lines on this car looked like someone with a plumb-bob walked around it to be assured that every vertical line was perpendicular to the street.
Not a single line of movement in the entire car. It was designed to sit and be sat in. There were some years where even the backlight C pillar was dreadfully perpendicular. Rounded edges? Not on these cars. It was a design look that was shocking to see in 1976. By 1986, we stopped noticing it. You wonder why big car sales slowed? No one wanted to drive a shoe box on wheels.
This look trickled down throughout the entire decade of the 1980s, so that we had entire parking lots at local malls filled with cars that looked like the boxes real cars came in. It is one thing to understand why a tiny Fiat looks like that, and quite another to understand how it is that our full sized sedans needed to look like that as well. Thankfully, by the end of the decade, we begin to see squarish cars attempt to break free from this severely anti-aerodynamic design.
So, I’ll say it: I wish GM added a little more motion to this design. Not a big fan.
Export spec:
“What was needed was M-B W114 interiors inside GM B/C bodies and mechanicals”.
The ( pictured) pastel green LS interior does indeed look more palatable to the modern eye- i.e., it looks more European. My brother-in-law had a ’79 Olds 98 LS in medium blue metallic- with matching vinyl top. Perfect color for this car. Meantime, my father owned a ’79 pastel green Le Sabre Custom w/ same color vinyl roof- to less effect. His metallic green ’65 Electra was a better hue IMO. And no vinyl to boot.
People still like comfort in their vehicles. It’s just that the vehicles available Today cater to comfort differently. Size is still a factor, big SUVs, CUVs crew cab pick up trucks, and even large minivans, (oxymoron?) all have a spacious cabin. The SUVs. minivans, and CUVs also have third row seats and a lot of inside storage. Seating comfort is certainly there with spacious supportive seats in at least the first two rows. Effortless high speed cruising capabilities are a given. AWD and 4WD? Your choice. A soft quiet ride? Of course. Climate control, entertainment systems, and all type of luxury features? Ditto.
The largest of these vehicles are often seen as excessive, which just adds to their attraction as a status symbol. Mid size versions of these platforms do their jobs quite well, and they are much smaller than the old, even “downsized” GM big cars. They just don’t have all that extra sheet metal draped on them.
I think that large sedans have disappeared because they just don’t offer any real advantages over a SUV/CUV. These models are available as high end products from every manufacturer, so status follows the manufacturer’s prestige. I just finished a 400 mile trip this evening from Southern Calif in my Flex. At 202 in. long it is 18 inches shorter than that Olds. It may not be a Lincoln, but it has almost every luxury feature that they had at a lower price. With FWD it does not feature sport sedan type handling, but it is safe and secure feeling even when driven at extra legal speeds.
Functionally I can’t fault it, if it’s too big for your tastes, Ford offers similar benefits is smaller packages. I spent my trip looking at the sea of SUVs and especially CUVs around me. Styling wise they are pretty dull, but if the execution is done well, they can be attractive as a product. I would say that truck models can elicit a bit more passion. In my mind CUVs can never really be something that I can really love, but they are something that I can really appreciate. It appears that most consumers have made the same choice.
Well spoken/said/typed, Tom.
Despite the high gasoline prices in Germany, I love this great car.
Interior is in good shape