(first posted 9/16/2012) I’m well aware of the Church of the B-body. I understand that for a lot of people, there’s no other way to make your average American sedan other than an overhead valve V8 mated to a driveshaft driving the rear wheels. And I’m here to offer the counter defense that you are far better off in rain, sleet or snow and at the gas pump if you embrace the H-body.
Although the 1977 B-bodies were downsized, they weren’t (overall length-wise) all that much smaller than the 1961-64 B-body cars. Although they were more rational than what proceeded them, They were not much more than the Cutlass Supreme across the lot in a crisply tailored pair of bell bottoms. Flash forward to the early 1980s. New CAFE Standards, threats of $3.00 a gallon gas, and tanking sales of the B-bodies? What is General Motors to do?
Get a little overzealous with the engineering and the blowtorch, that’s what. Just in time for gas prices to ease. Although the FWD C bodies first went out the door to meet the disaster, the former B-bodies became Wagon only, and their sedan and coupe nameplate mates became the “H” Bodies. Nearly 2 feet shorter than they had been, once again playing that awkward showroom game of having “mid sized” Cutlasses actually being slightly larger (and cheaper). Add in the fact that the Cutlasses still had a V8… and… we can see where some of the backlash became legitimate. “You want me to pay more for ‘less?’ Show me that Cutlass Supreme with a ‘real’ rocket.”
If General Motors had any real ego left, the Cutlass Supreme would have disappeared/been rebadged as the new aero-back Cutlass Ciera Coupe in 1986 to make room for the new Eighty Eight. But GM was too willing to milk the cash cow. Or another solution would have been to forget developing the GM-10 W-body cars and pump redevelopment money back into the B-bodies for all of the customers that were crying foul and reintroduce “proper” DeVilles, Electras and Ninety Eights for 1991.
General Motors reportedly spent 3 Billion dollars on the H-Body cars, about the same amount of money Ford spent on the Taurus/Sable. But the perception of the two platforms couldn’t be more different. The Taurus is still lauded as a milestone Ford. Meanwhile everyone, GM included was confused on what exactly to do with the H-body cars (at least the first generation cars). All the more amazing considering that in a few key configurations they were remarkably similar. Space efficient, peppy, aerodynamic and economical.
Maybe they lost the plot with the styling? Although the sedans are bores next to the Taurus, the coupes turned out to be the best lookers of the whole C/E/H/K downsize debacle. But there is that infamous Newsweek(?) cover story of the four Front Wheel Drive A-bodies in red lined up next to each other, and only a true car buff could tell them apart. You could accuse the various C & H bodies of having the same problem. At least on the old B-bodies the Buick had that goofy shovel nose going on to tell them apart from the rest.
The proposition of paying more for “less” car also turned off a lot of buyers, in the same way the awkwardly styled 1962 Plymouth and Dodges didn’t help their case with the almost equivalent sticker prices to the much visibly larger 1961 models. But there was more content available: Rack & Pinion steering for better maneuverability, efficient and ever increasingly strong versions of the 3.8L Buick V6, which would morph by 1988 into the legendary 3800. You were able to go further with your gallon of regular… and maybe I should get to why I’m hyping and praising such an unloved General Motors car.
Roundabouts January 2004, after I had gotten the money from the totaled out LHS, I decided to make myself an Oldsmobile Man again. My father had a pretty good relationship with his 1995 Eighty Eight, and remember all of the advertising from my youth on how the equivalent Le Sabre kept getting J.D. Power and Associates awards, starting around 1989 or so.
So off the the magical land of Craigslist I went. Within my budget I found a 1991 Eighty Eight Royale Brougham in the same shade of Maroon as the above car, but with tan leather and all the options save the digital gauge cluster and astroroof moonroof. Owned by a Lithuanian Doctor with a stack of maintenance records I couldn’t wait to hand over the $800. My favorite option? The FE3 Suspension that meant I wasn’t purchasing one of the wallowing versions of the H body platform.
My car being the best of the original H body breed, I didn’t have to worry about frying a 440-T4 automatic (which seem to have a higher failure rate compared to the 4T60 version of the transmission). The handling was remarkably adept for your average family sedan. In fair comparison, the base suspension of any C or H body car is barely any better than the B-bodies they replaced when it comes to aquatic body motions. My dads base suspension LS is remarkably floaty.
And I don’t know if I can praise enough the high 20’s MPG I achieved under my lead foot with the 3800 V6. 165 horsepower feels remarkably strong when paired with 210lbs/ft of torque, a 3,500 pound curb weight and a pretty well geared transmission. I got my one and only speeding ticket of 96mph in this Oldsmobile. The CHP officer was so furious at me that he forgot to write down how fast I was going.
Along the thread that “Florence” was a tireless performer, it’s the car that survived my lean college years with plenty of neglect. I bought her with 197,000 miles on the odometer. I sold her to a cousin 2 years later for $350 with 246,000 miles. In that period of mileage, I performed 4 oil changes, 1 brake job for each end and one swap of spark plugs as a quasi tune up. My cousin dumped another $400 in her and had a car that lasted to 285,000 miles before the signs of my neglect became too impossible to ignore.
It’s the one car I wish I had never parted with. But I could not resist the rite of post collegiate “I scored my first job!” euphoria and purchased a 1998 Volkswagen Jetta GLX VR6. As I hear the collective groan of the readers, sometimes you can be convinced to put little to no money down on a used car because of an engine note, a sunroof and red paint. If someone doesn’t get to it first, I’ll tell that story someday.
But there’s plenty of proof that General Motors got something right with the H bodies, each time I see them on the street 25 years later. Some look like survivors from nuclear fall out, some looking painfully overstuffed on 22 inch rims and then another set perfectly preserved. Controversial they might be, but they are thankless survivors from a collapse of a corporate giant.
Driving these cars today is a relevation. Almost like the feeling of having the blindfold removed from your eyes. The sight lines! The airy greenhouse! The slim pillars! Too bad these qualities are gone from today’s automobiles. Thankfully automakers today have finally figured out that not everyone appreciates the feeling of security gained by sitting on an armored cars, with slits providing the only view outward, and have started slimming down the pillars. But I don’t know if it’ll ever be this slim again.
Thank you!!! That’s precisely one of my top 5 gripes about modern cars. I don’t want the A-pillar airbags. I simply don’t want em. Is that careless? Maybe, but hey, a lot of people drove vehicles without even a steering wheel airbag (before it was invented), let alone multiple airbags, and somehow an overwhelming majority of them survived. Nothing replaces defensive driving, not any number of airbags. 😀
We are required to protect the oblivious (that is, they are oblivious tho the fact that they are idiots, much less everything else around them) idiots from themselves.
My E30’s amazing handling has gotten me out of a few would-be scrapes, most recently this past Tuesday. Like a damn slot car.
My niece had one that was a solid car, later sold to my girlfriends son. That car was reliable as any of that vintage, can’t say anything bad about it. It was finally junked around 250k, after plenty of abuse.
I guess I’m from the age of dinosaurs, but I’ll take a B body GM any day over the H series. The H cars remind me of a slim fast diet that went horribly awry. I’ll continue to listen to my sermons from the Church of B-body.
Say hello to another dinosaur. A 1985 Olds Delta 88 had presence, even with the stupid amber taillight lenses. A 1986 Olds Delta 88 looked like an overweight Ciera.
I find much to like in both but if pinned down would prefer the old B-bodies if anything for there diverse range, smooth isolated ride, huge trunks, true 6 passenger width and available big inch V8 engines gas prices be damned. The efficient side of me does like the slimmer trimmer H-bodies for there zippy 3.8 performance, up to 30 highway MPG, efficient use of interior space relative to exterior dimensions and the added advantage of FWD Winter traction which is 5 months out of he year for us Upstate, NY folks.
My favorite of the H-body cars would be the sportier Bonneville in the 90-91 vintage with the SE trim and performance gearing and suspension settings. They also had gauges and bucket seats which I always preferred over the bench setups in the Buicks and Olds. The LeSabre T-Type was another favorite of mine for similar reasons.
Though I’m a big fan of the planet-sized B-bodies, I do think that certain H-bodies are pretty sharp. In particular, the Cadillac Seville and Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight, both in Touring Sedan trim. If I remember right, the Olds touring sedan had power-seat adjustments that were complex enough to launch a space shuttle. I also think–not sure though–that these were the only GM cars at the time to offer wood trim that came from actual trees.
I believe the Ninety Eights had actual walnut, the Deville Touring Sedan had Zebrano Wood.
I love, love LOOOOOVE these cars! My dad’s ’87 LeSabre (same color as the car here) was terrific although that clam shell hood was odd.
The 3800 felt like a jet engine compared to the 307 in my Riviera.
Right at the dawn of the 90s my Uncle Denny (yeah the hog farmer) dumped a very tired early 80s Grand Prix coupe for a late 80s H-body 98 sedan. It was a base model with factory wire wheel covers, painted red with a red interior. He thought that car was perfect save he thought it needed a telescoping steering collum. (In those days even his new field tractors were being delivered with tilt and telescope.) He kept that 98 for many years and many, many miles. In the late 90s the 98 was replaced by a 2nd generation Chrysler Concorde (and recently that was replaced by a Buick Lucerne.) I have been facinated by the fact that his first FWD car turned him into a convert – but then it does snow quite a bit in Northwest Ohio.
Very cool. It’s good to see these cars get their due!
In my experience, as far as the Panthers go (I assume the B-body would be the same way), the rain was never a problem, not in a single one that I’ve been in, and they weren’t exactly being ****footed through the water, either. Snow? Yeah, forget it.
I think it’s an eternal debate. RWD vs FWD… FWD is an all-weather car, so if pure functionality and userfriendliness are the chief priority an FWD triumphs 100%. My first car was a FWD Sable from that early generation, so pretty much a Taurus. I liked it and it saved my life not once but twice on winter roads when I was able to steer my way out of spinning the first time toward a bunch of trees and the second time toward the edge of an icy bridge (I was a young driver then and both times was in a hurry). So I remember firsthand what it’s like to be able to rely on the FWD in the winter, in the seconds when your life and health are at stake (I was alone both times, no other traffic around).
Then I got a Ford RWD car… and I couldn’t believe how much I loved the push from the rear wheels. It just turned me on! Or turning into corners, all of a sudden it was fun! Now, the trade-off was that I pretty much don’t drive now when it snows. Part of it is not even the fact that I don’t think I could (I know I could), but rather that by now I cherish the car itself way too much. But – I’ve been lucky enough to have public transportation in a big city to afford this luxury (some might certainly call it an inconvenience).
The bottom line though remains – FWD rules in the snow. No two ways about it. If you absolutely must drive in the snow months… it’s just a no-contest. Further yet, if I had to, I probably wouldn’t invest into winter tires or chains. I’d just get a second car, a FWD. Maybe another Sable. I could probably score one for the price of a good set of winter tires, lol.
Or maybe, I should get one of these? 🙂
This was my first front wheel drive car. I was very skeptical at the thought of any front drive GM car, but it drove so nice I forked over 600 bucks and it was mine. I remember the joy of driving this car during during winter. After the “knife in the back handling” of my old Cutlass, FWD was a breeze in the Canadian winters. I felt this car was smoother than my b body caddy and the space that Delta 88 had was huge. Unfortunately I bought it with a slightly slipping tranny just hoping to squeeze a year out of It. I got my year out of it and the tranny quit being a 4speed and became a powerglide.
Never having seen one of these before I’m struck by how eerily like the ’82 Volvo 700 series they look. I’d always assumed Volvo cribbed the 700’s styling from Detroit but perhaps it was the other way around after all…
Please permit a contrary opinion on fwd vs. rwd in the snow. I grew up in northern Indiana, with plenty of snow and ice. I have always preferred a balanced rwd to fwd. ’60s Mustangs and ’70s Cutlasses were NOT balanced, and were absolutely horrible in the snow. But big rwd Fords, Mopars and GM B bodies were pretty good. I had a ’94 Club Wagon with Traction Lok that was the best snow car I ever had. What you give up in traction (but not by much) is the ability to steer the rear when the front doesn’t respond the way you would like.
But back to the H body. The looks of these never did much for me, but they proved themselves to be very, very durable cars. My youngest brother had an H body LeSabre in college. He bought it right and it treated him well. Did the Oldsmobile have the backwards opening hood? Or was that just a Buick thing? These things were also very, very good against rust. In fact, I saw one of these out on the road this morning, pretty ratty but not really rusty (which is saying something in my climate).
I completely agree vis-a-vis rwd in the snow (and I’m a Southern boy, too).
I always liked the crisp, clean styling of these, but my leanings are much more toward the previous (early ’70s) H-body cars. Coupled with a 3.8L Buick, my ’71 Vega had the performance to match the looks. I carried a hunk of steel plate in the trunk to provide better weight balance, and it did great (and was a hoot) in the occasional snow we’d get in Georgia…
Whether it was international or late 1950s Ford influenced, only the Buicks had the clamshell hoods, and only for the first generation. I think it actually makes tune ups on the 3800 easier since the spark plugs are so close to the firewall.
I was under the impression (maybe by the car mags) that the forward hinged hood was supposed to be safer. And more Saablike, if that appeals to you.
I agree the only thing FWD has going for it in the snow is starting traction on flat and slight up hill roads. Beyond that a properly balanced RWD is superior. Drop a hundred or two pounds in the trunk of the RWD and the FWD looses those advantages.
Born and raised in Buffalo, NY and then transplanted to CT so I have to concur with your opinion. The 85 LeSabre did ok in the snow, especially the 10% grade up to a corner stop light at Atwells Ave in Providence, RI. All it took was careful modulation of the gas pedal and delicate steering and i passed all the Jeeps that had got stuck at the light. Imagine their faces when they saw this skinny mick powersliding past them in the aircraft carrier-like B-Body!
We drove fwd minivans and a rwd Blazer through many Northeastern winters (bought the Blazer in TX in case anyone is wondering what bonehead buy a rwd Blazer in NY). The minivans performed better overall, but the Blazer did far better than expected. I’d say the greater aspects are tire choice and skill set. Get those down and either work.
I also drove a diesel GMC Savana-based bus. It perfomed flawlessly in snow. I can’t tell you how many 4×4 Wranglers and Cherokees I passed in the ditch, though. Over confident, under-skilled Jeep drivers were the bane of my winter route.
I used to think the same after owning a few RWD mid and full size cars during the 80’s and early 90’s. Until I almost got into a major accident trying to climb an icy hill and going sideways coming back down said hill. A switch over to a FWD 1989 Cutlass Ciera with plain old all season tires made me a believer that FWD cars are far better in the Winter than RWD ones and much less of a hassle with not having to switch over to snow tires and take up half my trunk with weight in the back. I have been using FWD cars ever since and would never go back to RWD again! My buddy that is a Panther lover agrees with me 100% and is looking for a FWD Winter car for the upcoming Winter as we speak.
My first brand new car (right after college, of course) was a 1987 Pontiac Bonneville SE H-body. Looked great, more aero than the other H bodies, sporty suspension for it’s day. Loved the red interior lighting. It was supposed to be an American BMW.
In the first 1000 miles one of the camshaft sensors disintegrated, doing some damage to the camshaft. It took two months to get it fixed due to backordered parts.
It worked pretty well for the 60,000 miles except for tires and brakes. The Eagle GTs wore out very quickly and I replaced them with Pirelli’s. And the brake pads and rotors tended to go quickly, but that may have been my heavy foot.
But after the warranty ran out… It was as if the car had a timer and parts started falling off. Several times a year something had to give up the ghost, usually one of the sensors. It went through oxygen sensors like candy.
But it was paid for and I was paying of my student loan, and the repairs were still cheaper than a car loan. I had a short commute so I was barely putting 10,000 miles a year on it. At around 100,000 miles I got it painted (the factory paint was pretty thin and the metal was showing).
Then things really started to go… I was looking at a $300+ repair bill for something every month. I gave up on iit. My Dad insisted it was still a good car and bought it from me while I bought an ’87 Cirrus (which was actually quite good and reliable until I totaled it).
My Dad sunk about $800 in repairs into it and it treated him well for another 40,000 miles. Every once in a while something would go wrong with it, but he enjoyed tinkering and getting parts from the Pontiac dealer. It gave him something to do and kept him out of my mother’s hair…
I have mixed feelings about the first-generation of GM’s front-wheel-drive full-size cars, based on personal experience.
My parents traded a very reliable 1982 Oldsmobile Delta 88 Royale Brougham with 100,000 miles on the odometer for a brand-new 1988 Delta 88 Royale Brougham. So making a direct comparison was pretty easy.
I remember being pleasantly surprised at the peppiness of the 3.8 V-6. The V-8 in the 1982 Delta 88 was reliable, and smooth once underway, but a total slug in accelaration. The 3.8 felt like…a rocket…under full throttle. My parents were also impressed with the fuel economy.
But the 1988 model felt cheap in comparison. The interior felt as though it was held together by paper clips. There was a drumming noise from the trunk that appeared to be a standard feature. The entire car felt light and wobbly on the road, probably because Oldsmobile tried to maintain the boulevard ride with the smaller, lighter platform. Its ride, if anything, felt LESS controlled than the ride in the 1982 model. Both cars had the standard suspension.
The real problem, though, was sloppy workmanship. The 1988 Delta 88 had several things wrong with it that required constant trips to the dealer for the first two months my parents had the car. Fortunately, superb dealer service prevented them from being soured on GM.
In the end, I don’t recall these cars as being particularly reliable or long-lasting. The 3.8 V-6 became troublesome after 100,000 miles, and the transmission wasn’t much better. My parents traded the 1988 model on a 1992 Delta 88, which I remember as being a vast improvement in every way over the earlier car.
GM got it right with the second generation of these cars. Unfortunately, by that point, a lot of customers had moved on to Lexus and Acura.
I think my prejudice against “Brougham” cars makes me look down at most anything produced by the Big 3 between 1975 and 1986. I find the interiors of most B-body cars annoyingly tacky in a “Sears catalog overstuffed couch” looking way. I don’t associate mounds of pillow cushion velour with luxury, I associate it with bad taste. I think a healthy number of buyers felt that way, and that’s one reason the Eighty Eight followed the Bonneville in ditching that kind of interior approach when they revamped the cars in 1990.
I will agree that build quality could be hit and miss on these through 1988. Some of them came down the line with the highest quality (perhaps the ones on the road 25 years later) and some of them came down the line ready to fry transmissions and eat camshafts. But I think the bugs were worked out enough by the turn of the decade.
The interesting part was that the 1988 model featured the famous (or infamous, depending on your perspective!) loose-pillow-look seats upholstered in velour, as did the 1982 model. Oldsmobile was clearly trying to make sure that nothing frightened away loyal Delta 88 owners.
As for the Brougham theme – I appreciate it from the standpoint, of “They don’t make ‘em like that anymore!”.
There’s a good reason for that – evolving customer tastes – but it’s interesting to see and drive something that was executed with a set of objectives diametrically opposed to the goals pursued by virtually all of today’s cars.
A 1976 Ford Gran Torino Brougham, along with the other cars of its type, is a time capsule to another era. Granted, part of it is nostalgia, as I grew up during the 1970s.
But the simple fact is that lots of customers wanted a soft ride, low levels of road noise, interiors trimmed in velour and shag carpeting and exteriors festooned with vinyl roofs, heavy side trim, formal grilles and hood ornaments. You can’t buy that today (and for a good reason, I know – customer tastes moved on).
Today’s cars offer superb (by historical standards) handling and braking. So, from my perspective, it just makes sense to buy a new car (or at least, a newer one) if those are the desired qualities. New cars are much better than the cars produced even 10-15 years ago.
Same with the muscle cars – today’s Mustang or Camaro produce enough power to leave the old ones in the dust, and a Focus or a Civic can outhandle or outbrake them. It may be heresy among the collector car community, but I have no desire for a 1960s muscle car for this reason. I’d rather have a 2011 Mustang GT that offers much better performance, along with the handling and braking to match.
I had a 1972 Cutlass Supreme Holiday coupe until 2000, and let’s just say that even with the relatively mild 350 V-8, the brakes were no match for the engine. (Drum brakes standard on a V-8 powered intermediate – what was GM thinking?!) It also had a rather rough ride, and this was with the standard suspension. One can imagine what a 442, with it’s high-powered V-8 and stiffer suspension, would have been like. Perhaps I’ve been spoiled, but a performance car should emphasize ALL aspects of performance.
So I’ll take a brand-new Mustang GT for fun, along with a 1976 Gran Torino Brougham four-door for something different.
Of course, with my current budget, I’d be lucky to afford a 1958 Rambler American, so that point is moot.
Different strokes for different folks. That’s what makes this site so interesting!
I echo your sentiments in many ways. I’m old enough to have owned/driven some of the muscle cars from back in the day, and my 1972 442 could be a handful, especially if you had to make sudden emergency stops. Mine had the front disc brakes, and even with those the cars back then had a tendency to lock the rears and sometimes the rear end would pass the front end.
If I really wanted a 19XX Xmobile, I can find one (if I had enough bux). I want a NEW car, with all of the modern advances. We’ve really come a long way in the last 20-30-40 years or so in total performance envelope, I don’t want to drive an old car, unless it’s for fun.
Well, then of course there’s the matter of what one is looking for and what one can actually afford. Is one looking for a 50k+ luxury/sports 4-seater? Most people I’m sure would like that, but very few can afford it, especially in this economy.
I don’t know if I agree with the position that older cars are entirely inferior to modern ones, except for the cushiness. I think a great deal of it stems from the fact that a lot of people haven’t driven those older cars when they were new. One test drives an old car today, and then test drives a new Camry and it’s like, yeah, older cars are rattly sloppy buses with horrible brakes and subpar acceleration.
But we’re not really talking about old cars as when they were new (I don’t mean the above posters, I know you guys have 😉 – but a lot of people haven’t). And we’re not talking about their UNEXPLORED POTENTIAL when they were new. We’re talking about old cars with that unexplored potential, and now some decades later, now that they’re old sloppy buses. So the big question is one of a restoration to “as new” + a few mods to bring it entirely up to date (such as the brakes, I agree with the above posters, those mostly warrant being modified as a system), vs. buying a new modern vehicle.
Then the next question is the cost of these two options, and whether the end result (=the “feel”) of a restored/modded vehicle will trump the feel of a brand new car in the price range of that restoration/modding. Matters such as exterior and interior styling enter into the equation as well. And of course, some level of comfort in performing or being able to afford simple mechanical maintenance after the restoration proper is complete.
If one likes older cars vs. new ones styling wise, then unless we’re talking drag racers here, in other words, if the car in question is going to be a daily driver in normal conditions, then it is almost always the case that an older car can be restored and then modded (better brakes, tighter suspension, shift kit) to take it completely over the top of whatever one would buy in that price range “new.” That’s how I see it, and I would only add that in my view this applies especially to early SEFI cars. Once you have a computer it can be tuned, and just like that, it’s up to speed with anything you buy today. Except maybe for the fuel mileage, but I would wager that with the fuel cost added to the restoration/mod cost it would still clock in under a new car price tag + dealer service + fuel cost in that range.
In other words, if the restoration + mods are going to run up to about 20k, and you now have a brand new engine + trans, a fully derusted and painted body, all new accessories and restored electronic units, now suppose it’s already a powerful engine and during the restoration you went one further and stuffed better heads, intakes and headers in there, then you upgraded the brake system to accommodate the best rotors you could get, then you tightened it all up with a few extra bars or say a panhard and some caster-camber plates, plus you threw a shift kit into that rebuilt trans, and installed a new custom sound system, and you got it all in 20k… and it rips the pavement and shifts and handles and brakes, and just rides in general at least as good as a 50k Audi… and it looks vintage, you’re just not going to invest that 20k any better, as far as cars go.
Friends had muscle cars in the 1970s, although they were, by that point, “used” cars for high school students. The bodies quivered over bumps and the handling was terrible (which sounds a lot like my parents’ 1976 Odsmobile Delta 88 Royale Holiday sedan, which wasn’t an “old” car at the time).
I don’t believe that was much of a change from when they were new cars. Older cars – particularly the GM cars – simply didn’t offer much in the way of structural rigidity, which affected handling.
Even top speed wasn’t all that much to write home about. I seem to recall a fair number of thrown rods and other such problems when my friends actually pushed their cars (meaning, drove them at 90+ mph for any extended amount of time).
The resto-mod trend is a good idea for those who want updated capabilities with the older looks (which, I agree, are very arresting – styling is one area where older cars were quite good, and much more distinctive than today’s machinery).
@phoenix: You’ve described a restomod, which are great cars in and of themselves. However, they’re no longer stock or original. Compare the stats between a 1971 Challenger and a 2011 Challenger. The new one will stomp the old one everytime. I like the idea of the 2011 Challenger, but I don’t necessarily want it bodied like a 1971 Challenger. Understand?
@geeber: So it was with my 442. It was ten years old when I got it. I had not been appreciably abused, but it was an old car. I got it back to good mechanical condition, but even then, a contemporary Camaro or Firebird would smoke that car in corners or braking maneuvers.
The cars that were even more used up were even worse to drive. It’s something of a miracle some of my contemporaries are alive…
Right, exactly, and I apologize for implying (I corrected my previous post) that you or Geozinger had not experienced the old cars. I reread my post and saw that it could be taken that way, and for that I am sorry. The point I would like to make, however, is to once again reemphasize the unexplored potential.
It is not that I have to spend $50,000 or more in new car money to get good handling and braking, of course not. It’s that what can be built for WAAY under today’s entry level price tag (which is in the mid-20s if adequately equipped with good options, before the stealership service fees even kick in), is going to spank the heck out of whatever sells for that entry level price. It is not even going to be close. The brakes will be just as good, the shifting just as good if not better, the modified engine will leave all 7 and 8 second-to-60 new cars in the dust, and the handling is always going to be better if the car is modified correctly. It’s just a matter of properly tuning a fully rebuilt suspension. The sound systems one can retrofit today into a car will spank anything available from the factory in non-premium cars. Anything. Most importantly, with all of the above areas addressed, the car is going to feel and ride better than the factory offerings in that price range. And that’s all before the best part comes in – the styling, exterior and interior.
Again, this is only relevant if one approaches the car as more than an appliance. Otherwise, today’s cars are great for going from A to B in comfort, security, and with some degree of driving enjoyment. I’m not arguing that point. But if one wants something better, a rebuilt/modded older car is the way to go unless one is willing to spend more money on a new sports or premium vehicle.
Once again, my apologies for not phrasing my initial post very well. I too, will hereby sign under “different strokes for different folks.” 😉
EDIT: Geozinger, saw your reply. Yes, a new Challenger will stomp an old stock Challenger, every time. Until the stocker has been modified. However, I happen to prefer the old Challenger’s non-wannabe styling. I guess that’s why I frequent this site. Call me a purist… 😀
Phoenix,
The resto-mod route is growing in popularity, so you aren’t the only one!
I’m just more interested in the old “Brougham” land yachts, as you really can’t get that anymore in a popularly priced car (or even a luxury car, for that matter). I must be one of the few people at car shows who will walk by a Hemi Mopar to first look at a mint condition Gran Torino Brougham or Cutlass Supreme Brougham or Pontiac Grand LeMans…
Geeber, I like them too, so [inserts an “embarrassed” smiley here] I would actually take a land yacht, bring it back to “as new” with stock brake, suspension and steering components and drive it just like that. And maybe someday I will! I think I’m hopeless, new cars just don’t “do it” for me…
Come to think of it, if I lucked into a Lincoln Mark V, that’s precisely what I’d do. No restomodding that one. It’s funny, I think some cars would completely lose their identity if restomodded. Others just seem to beg for it, “Please, pleeeeeze modify me, I was supposed to rule the pavement, my makers just didn’t know quite how to pull it off!!”
So, likewise – you aren’t the only one! 😀
This isn’t a resto-mod, but back in the late 60’s, an old friend took all the shocks off a 1951 Rambler and proceeded to get on rte. 66 (now I-44) SW of St. Louis. He almost lost control and killed himself when it started bouncing uncontrollably! He stopped it and lived. Never did that again!
Oh, but to be 17 & 18 again…
And I’d be right there with you, admiring all that plush pillow cushion velour and fake wood trim 🙂
Phoenix: I’m glad you clarified your statement, it was needed. No worries, everyone here has batted out a comment without working out the syntax properly… 😉
This site is cool for me too, I’m glad to see others who have similar experiences to mine and to share with other folks who didn’t have them. And for others to share with me their experiences. It’s all good…
If I’m going to buy an old car, I want something that we really can’t get today, and captures the essence of its era. We can’t buy a popularly priced “Brougham” type car anymore, and, like it or not, that is what large portions of middle America and upper-middle America wanted when I was a teenager.
(This was meant to be a reply to geozinger’s post, but it showed up later in the thread!)
I am a fan of the H body. A salesman had one of the first ones in a company I used to work for. I used to go with him on sales calls to STL to Peoria to our then biggest customer. I took along my binoculars to spot cops for him, as he would cruise at 85! Loved that car! As I-55 was right alongside route 66 and the STL-Chicago Amtrak line, I had my camera one day and got a photo, barely, of the southbound State House, as I’m sure the closing speed had to be close to 160 mph!
That car was very comfortable, but one of those was way out of reach for our meager budget in those days.
I also recall when Buick came out with the coupe version, the ads saying something like: “…remember when America’s roads were filled with big, glorious coupes…?” or something along those lines.
Of course, the back windows were fixed, and the sedan’s rear door windows suffered from GM’s “half-way” mentality!
But at least the back door windows could be rolled down halfway compared to that of the 78-88 G-body sedans which were fixed and only a rear “vent” window opened.
got a photo, barely, of the southbound State House, as I’m sure the closing speed had to be close to 160 mph!
Who said government can’t move quickly?
In the strict appliance sense of things for the average consumer the H body was better than the B in just about every way. However not being the avg consumer I prefer the BOF RWD B just make it old enough to have a proper Buick V8. The 3.8/3800 was a great engine though.
My main problem with the H-body is the same one as with the B-body and the Panther sans the Town Car. Not enough brand differentiation. It is sooo easy to mistake this for a Buick, or a Bonneville, or a DeVille, aficionados will know the difference of course but an average person won’t. Ditto for the Crown Vic and the Grand Marquis, the lack of exterior difference was pretty bad for the first and third generations (somehow the aeros ended up different, I guess that was the only time they “tried”).
These cars desperately needed unique sheet metal!! It might have been a very different tale…
I don’t have as much history with H body GMs as I do B body GMs, but I am a fan. I can remember when my sister bought a Bonneville SE in 87 or 88, thinking this was not such a bad car to ride in or drive, especially for it’s size.
Coincidentally, I had a H body Mopar at the time, and the Bonnie felt like a bigger version of the Lancer. Still tight and responsive, the car drove ‘smaller’ than its size. Kind of like the same feeling I got driving post Y2K (G body) Bonnevilles.
She kept that car until the mid 90’s and 300K miles, and then my nephew had several years with it too. Sadly, I don’t know what happened to it, I’ve never asked either one of them.
I remember well when these came out. I thought the C-body version (which is practically the same as the H-body) was more attractive. Somehow the more formal roofline worked better with the overall boxy design than the slightly slanted roofline on the 4-door Bonneville/88/LeSabre. The coupe, on the other hand, was really good-looking and almost sporty in a big-car way. I especially like the LeSabre T-Type, which was and is very rare. By the way, does anyone know why there was never a wagon on this platform, and also, why no Chevy version? (I guess the easy answer is that they kept making the B-body caprice, but that didn’t stop Cadillac from offering two versions of the Fleetwood/Brougham.)
Anyway, overall, I like some of these cars, but recognize they were a jump-the-shark moment for GM and one of their big “deadly sins”. I remember my brother-in-law buying his parents’ 10-year old, fairly low-mileage LeSabre in the late ’90s, and selling it soon after when it nickel-and-dimed him to death.
I think the dominance of the police and taxi fleet for the Caprice gave it a stay of execution. And the towing ability being the main advantage over the Front Wheel Drive A bodies is probably why the B-body wagons got a stay of execution.
GM Matched Ford pretty well in size class with Wagons at that point: J bodies against Escorts, A bodies against the Taurus/Sable and the traditional boat wagons. Given that most likely an H-body wagon wouldn’t have been all that much more roomy than an A-body wagon is why there wasn’t one. Then there could be the fact that General Motors didn’t understand the family market was decidedly moving away from coupes, the last Eighty Eight Coupes are super rare, I don’t even think 1,300 coupes were sold in 1991. That would be the one to have in my possession again.
The Electra/Park Avenue coupes are rare, I have never seen one in the wild. I know they made them in 1985 and 1986, but not sure if they were made after that. I think the C-body Buicks looked best, the chrome side moldings on the Park Avenues made them look smoother and less boxy. My aunt still has a 1986 Park Avenue in the garage. Light silver blue with a navy vinyl roof and navy velour interior, not perfect but in nice shape for a 25 year old car. She’s had it since 1995 but no longer drives, so it just sits. One of these days I may have to see if I can get it running. I drove it many years ago and it was a very cushy car, great glass area too.
The Electra Coupes and Ninety Eight Coupes made it to 1988. I don’t remember how weak demand was for those but they couldn’t have done much better than the last LeSabre or Eighty Eight Coupes.
GM’s failure to realize the market moving away from coupes was one of the factors leading to the GM-10 disaster of the late 1980s. Those cars (Cutlass Supreme, Regal, Grand Prix) were introduced only as coupes (which had been the best-selling G-bodies for years) but Ford’s Taurus was offered as a sedan and a wagon and sold like hotcakes even without a coupe (Dearborn still had the rear-drive T-Bird and Cougar for midsized coupe buyers). Not until 1990 were GM-10 sedans offered, but it was too late as mid-sized sedan buyers had moved to Taurus/Sable, Camry and Accord.
I’ve commented on it many times before, but my C-body 1988 Buick Electra T-Type 4-door sedan was overall the best car that I’ve ever owned, and out of almost 30 cars, I owned it the second-longest: 16 years. The 1971 LTD was in the family for 30 years but I only drove it for 18 of those. And the Buick had more rear seat headroom and legroom than the LTD did!
The H-body cars (and their kissing cousin C-bodies, the ones which had the more upright rear window glass, used by the Buick Electra and Park Avenue, Olds 98, and FWD Cadillacs) had to be one of the most space-efficient cars that GM ever built. Plenty of headroom and legroom front and rear, excellent visibility in all directions, incredible easy access to the engine (esp. with the Buick’s BMW-style hood) and a lot of trunk space.
AND they had a wide-open floorboard in the front seat, unlike almost all modern cars which fill the center of the front seat and floorboard with a massive, oversized console.
I now have a 2001 Buick Lesabre, and to tell you the truth, if I could trade it straight across for my 1988 T-Type in equivalent condition, I’d do it in a heartbeat.
If I were looking for a comfortable, relatively reliable and safe car for cheap, a late model H body would be high on the list. I am not much of a GM fan but big cars is what they always did best. I always loved the the 3800 V-6/4 speed auto combination. There are still loads of them around, like this one:
http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/van/ctd/2589405055.html
This car could be on the road and insured for like $3000, taxes paid and would almost definitely give several years of good service.
I do have a soft spot for the early models, I loved the upright styling that gave excellent visibility but experience has shown me with GM products, later in the model run is much better.
I remember my father’s rants against FWD in the early 80s. Even after he bought my mom an 83 Mercury Lynx!
These were good cars for sure but they were also typical GM. Whenever I saw one of these all I could think was Old Man’s car, I don’t see that when I look at most of the other H derivatives.. To me it seemed like Olds designed a car that would least offend their “traditional buyers” when they needed new buyers. A common GM mistake. If they could have rolled out the 91+ H cars in 85 they would have put a real hurt on Ford.
GM may have spent a similar amount of money in development of the H as Ford did on the Taurus/Sable. However, Ford committed much more money and resources to the twins in the long run than GM would (could?) for the H. Ford started breaking us in to the T/S cars in 1983 with the Cougar/T-Bird and the Tempo/Topaz in 84.
Maybe the General was still a bit heartbroken over the X body?
I think the true wound was across the showroom floor in the Cutlass Supreme. A Open festering wound of “traditionalism” that caused a very schizophrenic line-up of cars. Since the G body Regal was pretty much de-emphasized, It didn’t have as much of a drag on the LeSabre/Electra as the Cutlass did in the showroom floor.
Oldsmobile marketing tried to have it both ways, The Eighty Eight in particular was marketed away from the virtues Oldsmobile emphasized for a good 15-20 years. The “road car that happens to seat 6” sounds more like Oldsmobile advertising from the early 1960s, when Oldsmobiles were “Where the Action Is.” Meanwhile the last couple of years of G Body Supreme advertising reflected on it’s “classic” virtues.
That schizophrenia was somewhat reflected in my father’s buying habits during the 80s and 90s, he was (and still is) a GM loyalist. He replaced his 1978 Monte Carlo with a 1982 Celebrity in 1985, replaced it with a 1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme sedan (back to BOF, V8, RWD) in 1992, and then replaced the Cutlass (in 1996) with a 1992 (redesigned back to being BIG) Bonneville SE with the whale tail spoiler. Talk about varying cars of varying sizes inside and out. The only consistency was the Iron Duke in the Celebrity made him swear off 4cyl engines.
The Iron Duke was enough to make anyone swear themselves off of GM products.
I don’t disagree. The H body may have had a fighting chance if the G cars were gone by 84. If the H was only fighting for space with the N body things may have been different.
Oops! im not used to being here on my phone..
I wanted to add that GM was still trying to style cars for their loyal 1970s customers. That didn’t change until the H body redesign in 91 when they started looking more like the Taurus. Too little too late.
You guys make me laugh with all this chatter about handling and American cars of the 80s/90s put any of you in a stock 91 3.8 Commodore and the drool would drown you.
The comparism is chalk and cheese between one and the barge in this post yet they share the same engine The Holden is lighter and corners well hasRWD and a V8 option manual option and is flat out a much better car. Unitary costruction produces lighter stronger bodyshells with none of the flex that comes woth old fashioned BOFand is far more capable of accepting bigger HP powertrains and suspension upgrades.
Another thing that I think should go is the “manual only on base model” mentality that is pervasive on all but european makes. Ford Focus, for example, you can only get manual on base model only. Worse, to get alloy wheels you have to get ‘sport package’ which restrict you to the sedan only and slushboxes! Isn’t slushboxes the antithesis of sport? Next thing you know you’d have to order whitewalls and vinyl roof and bench seat with the sport package!
For a few years after the redesign of the Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis, and Town Car (1992) whitewalls were only available with the handling package. (At least that’s the urban legend I’ve heard.)
My grandparents had two of the first-gen C/H cars: an ’85 Ninety Eight Regency and and a ’91 Eighty Eight Royale. The ’85 was a bucket of bolts with lots of first-year teething problems and it never ran quite right. The ’91 was a much better vehicle, and much more modern-looking (especially without the pillow top seats).
GM really dropped the ball on styling (the overzealous downsizing is forgivable given the uncertainties of the era), but these were hands down the best GM products of the ’80s and ’90s.
I would contend the best GM products of the 80s and 90s were the 1988-98 GM Trucks.
That’s my Buick! No, this a Cadillac! No, No, it’s an Oldsmobile … I think …
I had a dark red / maroon(?) 88 LeSabre T-Type Coupe, bought it after I totaled my 86 GTI into the side of a TownCar (Killed by Panther!). The TownCar had lost control and crossed into my lane sideways in a rainstorm on a freeway onramp on the SF Peninsula. We were fine but the inclination was to replace with a bigger car…
I found the car at Stanford Cadillac with 33000 miles on it, (this was in 1993 or 94), I paid around 9K for it IIRC and drove it for two years and 50000 miles. I eventually sold it to a little old lady that was trying to replace hers that she lost in a house fire!. She gave me $8800 for it and I was thrilled.
That car was great, at the time I was dating my future-wife-to-be who was a student at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo and the Buick and I made the 450 mile round trip every other weekend for a couple of years. Great freeway car, very quiet, excellent gas mileage, a little floaty but lots of fun. I liked the exterior styling, hated the interior styling, but found it supremely comfortable. Everyone at work thought it was weird of me (23 or 24years old at the time) to be driving a Buick but whatever. The car was totally reliable, besides oil changes I may have changed the tranny fluid once and the parking brake release knob came off in may hand once but that was it, never any real problems.
I’ve had a H at my place of residence from 1989 to today.
My 3 H-bodies (’89, ’90, ’92) are all still on the road (the ’92 is in my current garage) despite hard lives, all still have their original engine and transmission, they never let me down, and they have a combined mileage of over 720k.
In comparison all of my A-bodies and one of my W-bodies required at least one engine swap and have all since been sent to the junkyard. My only W-body that is still on the road had the L67 and is much newer than any of my H’s.
I also wanted to add — the ad you posted for the H-body Delta 88 is laughable. From an advertising point of view, this had to be a low point for GM. “Olds has done its level best”…. wow, what a clever headline! Not! So blah, along with that plain jane shot of the car in a field with kites. There is nothing exciting about the ad, and it makes the car and Oldsmobile seem very generic. It’s almost as if they were TRYING to lose sales. For contrast, take a look at Honda advertising from the 80s — consistent, humorous and clever all around. There is a lot more character and zest in the ’77 ad, even with the corny crowd shot at the (now gone) Olds headquarters in Lansing, MI.
These renditions of the Downsized FWD H-Body 1986 Oldsmobile Delta 88 in both the 2 & 4 Door Body Styles were very reminiscent if not a resemblance both in size and design to the RWD Chevrolet Nova based X-Body 1975-79 Oldsmobile Omega with also their 2 & 4 Door Body Styles as well. I have even included the photographic side by side comparisons of both Oldsmobile Cars BTW.
Geeber nailed it:
“GM got it right with the second generation of these cars. Unfortunately, by that point, a lot of customers had moved on to Lexus and Acura.”
Rinse and repeat for GM, 1986-2009.
I don’t have direct experience with these cars but have heard anecdotal evidence that these cars DO last and last and last, as long as the rust didn’t get to them first, especially when equipped with that venerable 3800 V6.
On YouTube, there is a channel, UXWBILL who’s family has at least 2 Lasabres, both late 80’s, one silver (’87 I think), one beige (’88). I forget how they got the silver one, but the beige one they were given and it’d been sitting for a long while and needed a jump start to get going and had, I think over 200K on it when they got it, something like 250K at best at the time and once running, it ran pretty fine. It’s up around 280K+ now I think and is known as the “long, cold forgotten Buick” and was his father’s DD for a long while.
One of the videos, at I forget, 280K, the camshaft pulley went, splitting and shredding the belt that was on it and damaging the camshaft sensor in the process. They showed how to replace one and to do so, jack up the car, pull the right front wheel off to gain access as it has to be performed through the wheel well opening.
I have tremendous respect for these old cars as a result of seeing this family keep theirs running. These cars have some rust on them now but nothing terrible like some other cars and they live in small town Illinois where it snows a lot too.
But they were like so many cars, especially from GM, but Ford and Chrysler too up through the early to mid 90’s when they insisted upon bench seats, column mounted automatic shifters etc in their more traditional sedans. Glad to see that finally disappear.
As for the looks these don’t look half bad for the day.
Glad I am not the only UXWBILL subscriber! Wish he would do more car videos.
Now I am a fan of the C/H bodies (grew up in a `89 Park Avenue & my aunt still owns a `97 Le Sabre,) but not at the expense of the B/C/D bodies. I won’t argue the merits of FWD or RWD in rain, sleet, or snow, but I will note that to call either superlative is highly subjective and not based in fact.
Many of you read of my 1995 LeSabre on here a couple of months ago, so I won’t repeat it all here. However, I have to agree that the H is a pretty amazing car. I’ve worked at a couple of GM dealerships over the years, and we routinely saw H’s come in with well over 200k on them and they would start and run every time. And run well!
Let’s face it, when it comes to over quality and durability, the H’s are some of the few domestic cars that are looked upon with the same kind of respect as Camcords.
I tend to think of them in kind of a family of the best vehicle appliances, the 1963-75 Dart/Valiant the 1978-1993 Volvo 240, The W123 Diesels and the H-bodies.
The main difference about the H-Bodies from those cars is that they were meant to be traditional comfortable American Cars with a certain amount of flair. Having owned the 240, 2 W123s and grown up and owned an H-Body it’s the one that blends the thrill of daily driving with relatively sturdy mechanicals. W123s are fun until something major breaks (something I haven’t learned yet) And the 240 is dog slow unless you can find one that doesn’t have a sludged up turbo. I haven’t seen a Douvrin V6 260 running in years….
Then again, won’t a 302 fit in a 240? I’ve seen a couple of those conversions…
The w123s and 240s seem like European outgrowths of the Valiant/Falcon in theme. The current Camry, really, seems like the successor of the H-bodies. There’s a reason why the Avalon was a better big Buick than the Lucerne was, and that’s because it’s DNA could be traced back to the quite excellent Camry.
It’s interesting now, because General Motors doesn’t carry a single barge sedan other than the seriously dated Impala now. The LaCrosse looks/feels too narrow to truly take the mantle of the old H bodies
My Mother-in-law still has a 1986 Delta 88 Royale Brougham; navy blue with the navy blue velour interior.
She bought it because it was the only ‘luxury’ car she could find with manual crank windows instead of power windows.
I drove it this past Saturday because it was due for state emissions inspection and she’s intimidated by the inspection station.
It only has 50,000 miles on the clock and the state inspector wanted to know if I had replaced the odometer.
It was quite nice to drive. Apart from having a gigantic, ultra-thin rimmed steering wheel, everything felt good. The 3.8 is still peppy; much more so than the one I remember in my ’81 Cutlass Supreme so long ago.
The visibility, as other have mentioned, is in another league from my current generation Accord.
It’s still quite a pretty car. Of course being garage-kept and only driving 2,000 miles a year helps with the cosmetics.
Her husband used to have a 1992 version, but he’s since traded it on a Grand Marquis.
I love old original low-mile cars like your mother in law’s. They are like time capsules. Back in the 80s, I owned a 66 Fury III that had only 20K on the odo when I bought it. I got 4 of the most trouble-free years of driving in my whole life out of that car.
My maternal grandpa bought a 1988 98 Regency after years of Mopar love. He hated it. He was about to buy another car when his stomach cancer returned and my grandma needed the car to drive him back and forth to the hospital. I got to drive it a couple of times when I was on leave. I remember how flimsy the interior was – just like the interior on my mom’s 85 Regal Limited. GM was really building shitty insides for their cars then. After he died in 1990, Grandma went and got a 1990 New Yorker Salon, complete with a faux convertible roof. Truth be told, it wasn’t much better than the 98. I was so used to them driving big Newports and Furys, so solid and big and powerful, these cars seemed like such a letdown.
But flaws aside, the H-bodies were a step in the right direction, in theory if not in execution.
I had an 87 Olds Royale Brougham & it gave me close to 200K with no problems other than a harmonic balancer & a few brake jobs. Regular fluid maintenance was & is key to any vehicle because heat destroys.
It would of lasted much longer but because of these horrendous Canadian winters where instead of plowing the roads like they used to they just lay a coating of SALT. Salt & having it sit idle because of my impatience of too many cars on the road.
I miss it dearly & am looking for another one.
The FWD Buick LeSabre ended up selling well by 1989. What helped was high JD Power ratings. But the Oldses died off. Not sure why, but maybe the Buick seemed more substansial?
H/C bodies were very popular used cars in working class areas of Chicago by the late 90’s. Easier to park and can fit 6. Park Aves, Bonnevilles, and 88’s seemed to dominate. LeSabres were still with original owners?
Now, the W body 2000-05 Impala is the popular working class ‘beater’.
I know I’m late to this thread, but just want to add my $.02.
As an owner of 2 H-bodies and one of the closely-related C-bodies (a 98 “Touring Sedan”), I remember them as fantastic cars for their time. My first H-body was an early-model LeSabre that I bought from an elderly relative. It had the ‘clamshell’ hood, which was a first for me, and it was a great all-around car. My previous car had been an early 70’s Skylark, and the improvements in handling and fuel mileage were a revelation. It had the 3.8l engine and seemed quite quick as well as fast on the highway and approached if not exceeded 30mpg in strictly highway driving. It met an early demise when one of the ubiquitous Cutless Supremes of the era pulled in front of me from a cross street in the driving rain. No ABS, Buick totaled. It was super low mileage but I got a fair settlement.
My second H-body I kept considerably longer – a later (90? 91?) Olds 88 Royale (NOT a Brougham) with the sorta hybrid bench/bucket seats (which I loved) and full digital instrumentation (which was at least unique). It was the same year as the maroon one with the alloy wheels pictured above (love those wheels!). Drove the stink out of that car and while it seemed a bit heavier and less nimble than the Buick was still a fun car to drive (for a full-sized four-door sedan!) and got decent gas mileage (also from a 3.8).
The only achilles heel to those cars (besides the cam sensor), which I didn’t see anyone else mention was the alternator design. It seemed they gave up the ghost every 18-24 months. luckily changing one out was a 20 minute job, and that’s using a crescent wrench. I finally found a place (NAPA?) that would give me a ‘lifetime’ warranty and never bought another one until I gave the car to a friend, still in perfect running condition.
The C-body felt slower and heavier (which makes sense as it was a ‘bigger’ car) but the suspension on the Touring Sedan was quite refined and made for some fun in the twisties. But the 3.8 just wasn’t up to the job in those cars – I would have liked to try one with the later supercharged 3800, could have been a very nice car. But as mentioned previously, the Touring Sedan *did* have real wood trim on the dash and door panels, substantial passenger and trunk room, and power seat controls it would have taken a NASA engineer to suss. It also had the first “on-board computer” of any car I ever owned, and the Bose stereo. Not a BMW, but not bad for the time.
I’d buy a real nice, low mileage H-body in an instant for reliable, economical transportation with room for 6 (in a pinch). Almost did a few months back, but someone beat me to the punch. C’est la vie!
I wonder how many Olds 98 Regency coupes were made? WITHOUT the landau roof! The Buick Electras/Park Aves came in landau and base roofs–but the only 98 Regencys I’ve seen are Broughams with the padded roof.
The coupes for both types of Cs were only made from 85 to 87.
i was able to buy a 1989 delta 88 2 door coupe
much better than the older body style
then i was offered a second of same car
so i owned 2…
best car i ever owned and then both cars got ripped off
so i am not the only one that saw the value in this model
not sure why they made the mistake of stopping production
i had the front wheel drive delta 88 2 door coupe
much better on handling
i now have an almost impossible time even seeing a picture of my old car online…
i have found that the best car was also the rarest
and either the cars are in the wreckers or nobody wants to let them go
if anyone in canada knows where i can buy another 1989 delta 88 royal 2 door coupe front wheel drive
let me know
I AM TRYING TO FIND ANOTHER
BUT CANNOT EVEN FIND PIC ONLINE
very rare model
this pic is of my 1986 model
this is what i want but the 1989 model
PLEASE HELP
I want to buy the 1986 oldsmobile delta 88 two door brougham from you my number is 870 872 9199
So nice this car. The 98 is my favorite of these cars. Handsome design and digital display on the dash.
I think you’re right in questioning if it was Newsweek that lined up the 4 downsized A-body sisters on its cover. Best I recall, it was Fortune magazine.
You are correct.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/1983-fortune-will-success-spoil-general-motors/
I think the coupe semi fastback roofline was very attractive. I even like the sedan roofline, that shot of the maroon sedan just looks so right, with the slim C pillar. I especially like the Buick version of the coupe. These cars are very roomy. I had a 94 Seville which was based on the H platform along with the De Ville. The back seat and trunk were cavernous. I saw a first gen FWD De Ville sedan this week. The passenger compartment is huge. The styling was a reach that just couldn’t carry off traditional Cadillac swagger. After GM stretched out both ends in 1989 I think they found the right balance. Speaking of uninspired ads, remember the Buick ad that featured a middle aged gent walking out to his car in a cloudburst covering his head with a newspaper? The copy read something like” this Buick isn’t a great car because it does any one thing the best but because it does so many many things so well”. Even at my age that is as dull as dishwater!
A ’94 Seville was on the K-body, same body as the ’86-’91 Sevilles, though stretched 3 inches in the wheelbase. The all-new-for-’92s featured a carryover transverse leaf spring suspension from the 86-91s but received a new short-long arm design along with the Northstar in ’93. The Deville moved to the K-body in ’94 with its major revamp.
Love the “H” body. As nice as the Olds Coupe with FE3 was, Buick did it tter with the LeSabre T-Type. Thisi s my 87. Also have a 91 LeSabre custom 4dr sedan that Iherited form my parents. Both are dependable transportation. I like the clamshell hood and the neat trick rear license plate slot. Not daily drivers, but they both still get attention.
Nice T-Type. Good for Buick to bring this model out. I saw one a few weeks ago in very good condition. The owner clearly knows he’s driving something special.
Surely GM couldn’t have spent $3 billion bringing forth the H-bodies unless that figure includes the nearly identical 1985 FWD C-bodies too, right? I mean, the difference between the H and C was *far* less than the traditional difference between the B- and C-bodies. The C always had about a 3″ wheelbase stretch, another 3″ added to the rear overhang, wider rear doors, and a more formal roofline. The H and C though had identical wheelbase and overall length, as well as more shared interior pieces like the front door armrests which used to differ between B and C. The H was now merely a decontented C with a more sloped rear window (with the bottom of the rear window in about the same place for both, but the top moved forward especially on the coupes). The rear door sail window or rear quarter window also had to be changed to match the roofline. Nearly everything else was the same on both the H and C bodies.
These cars were worthy successors to the downsized B bodies. They were just as roomy inside, smaller outside (and thus more maneuverable), lighter, and got better fuel economy. Moreover, unlike the B bodies, they had the improved road feel of rack and pinion steering, and the improved cornering and rough road stability of independent rear suspension.
I wonder if GM’s huge market share loss during the 1980s would’ve been lessened if, instead of developing the GM10 cars, GM had debuted the H bodies in 1986 featuring the styling of the 1992-1999 versions, included a Chevrolet version of the H body, and marketed the H body as the company’s main family sedan.
Relatives of mine had a 1986 version of this car….same color….looked identical…..The car was smooth riding and had plenty of pep but it was plagued with mechanical issues…..It went through 3 transmissions…..and finally at 140,000 miles, it got so unreliable that they went to Toyota and bought a new 1993 4 cylinder Camry in trade for the Olds…..and drove the Camry 220,000 miles with nothing more than routine maintenance……They never bought another Domestic brand car again.
While these H bodies may have eventually made a pretty good FWD transportation appliance, the styling of these has always left me cold. Late 1960’s details stuck on an oddly proportioned box. A struggle between tradition and modernity – which just about every new car GM introduced in the 1985 – 1988 era suffered with.
Our neighbors inherited a red 1987 Brougham 4 door with upgraded suspension from there daughter with 93K miles and had that car up until about 6 years ago. It lasted through 16 Upstate, NY Winters, went everywhere under the sun, almost never broke down that I remember and had 245K miles when it was finally put out to pasture.
I remember helping them install an alternator from Western Auto parts (remember those) for the price of 59.99 plus core at about 100K miles and of course the famous rattly clanking harmonic balancer with around 160 on the clock and several tune ups and an EGR valve. Not much else ever went wrong however and that car was a revelation when they first got it in 1994 compared to there old 1983 Caprice which was also a nice car but suffered from a base and worn out floaty suspension, a hardly fast 305 with loads of miles. The Delta in comparison felt like a race car, was very nimble, had a far more firm and composed ride and easily got up to 30 MPG on the open road which the father always bragged about. The area it suffered was in trunk space which was noticeably smaller than any B-body full size.
By 1988-89 GM had much of the bugs worked out with the 440 Trans axle, the superior 3800 series engine and the steering racks which some early 1986 examples suffered with the morning stiffness issue. We sold piles of these cars during the 90’s and early 00’s. The 88-91’s as mentioned seemed the best and some were traded back in to us with 250-300K miles for a newer 92-99 and still started right up and ran good. I will say that the Buick versions seemed the best in terms of build quality, reliability etc followed by the Olds and the Pontiacs seemed a little more hit and miss during these years. Perhaps it was the elderly owners who took better care of them and never beat them like the younger ones did.
You can still find a few of these H body Oldsmobiles up here. Most in generally good condition with veteran’s plates and grey haired owners. They are certainly nice looking automobiles and well designed for their intended purpose.
I’d be keen to have one as long as it had the 3800 series engine.
These cars have definitely stood the test of time. I’ve always appreciated the coupes, and the sedans *eventually* got the details right–the best-looking 4-door of the bunch has to be the 90-91 LeSabre with the updated grille.
Funny how many you still see; I remember back in the early-mid 90’s when my parents were shopping for a new used car, our mechanic advised us to stay away from the H-bodies because he’d seen a lot of problems with them. The transmission issues with the early models must have soured him on the whole line, but it seems as a whole his opinion turned out to be wrong!
As good as the Olds & Buick FWDs were, from the late 80s through the mid-to-late 90s, there is still some reason to prefer RWD. I confess that I was impressed over my wife’s ’96 Park Avenue.. which would have lasted more than the 20 years it did.. were it not for a yo-yo t-boning it.. with an Audi.
Yet my ’89 Caprice got just as good gas mileage as her ’96 FWD: both averaged in the low 20s.
I’ve only driven or been in one of these a couple of times, and long ago, but at the time it seemed they did so much right. So roomy, so comfortable, good mpg, and it seemed the ultimate evolution of the sheer/boxy/efficient look which still looked modern to me back when that was something I liked. And the hood opened BACKWARDS which was so cool to me by itself.
Alloy wheels were essential though, as I saw spoked hubcaps and whitewalls as old-fashioned and at odds with the smooth modern lines. (Today I’m okay with them because it’s all old-fashioned now and I can group the styles together)
My neighbor had an ’88 with the 3800 engine well into the 2010s and I helped him work on it once. It wasn’t so bad under the hood. Everything accessible and logically placed. No bloody knuckles or anything. Much easier than my newer cars, anyway.
So to me these cars are hard to fault as family haulers/daily drivers.
All I would change is the dash. It functioned well enough, but to it’s credit the Taurus changed my thoughts on “flat” GM dashes forever.
Before I forget, the visibility from inside these cars deserve a special shout-out. Superb!
You know, up to a few minutes ago I thought there was nothing wrong with the design of these cars. Form-follows-function is one of my sincerely-held religious beefs, and I generally like boxes rather than jellybeans; wedges, or alien insects with anger-management issues. And the function-forward design of this H-body 88 extends beyond just roomy boxes and good sightlines; we’ve also got large tail lights with—glory be!—real turn signals. I dig the grab-hold-and-punch-the-button door handles, too.
But then I saw this picture. Gack! No! The top few inches of the trailing edge of the door wants; needs, and begs to be a straight vertical line continuing that of the bottom couple inches of the trailing edge of the windowframe. That rearward scallop effect at the top-rear of the doorframe is plain and flatly incorrect.
Not surprised. If any car maker was going to to do this. I’d guess The General every time. Generally speaking, whenever I looked at Delta 88s from this era, I saw them as the Cimarron Fleetwood edition.
“Cimarron Fleetwood” FTW! »chuckle«
Yeah, this kind of slackassed design malpractice was a hallmark of the Irv Rybicki era at GM. Others, too, but at the moment I’m slagging Rybicki because he deserves it again.
The door sheet metal looks like it’s shared with the 98, which actually has a forward lean to the window frame/C pillar, but no mini-kink like the 88. It’s just bolt upright in our imagination.
Had the Buick LeSabre version of this car, only in a lighter color. All around decent car. Ignition switch issues that I think led to timing chain failure prior to 100K. Stalling out at low speed and then starting to run again. Transverse engine made it too expensive to repair. On a RWD, I would have done the job myself. Will RWD ever come back? Love the color on the one in this post.
Er-ruhhh…awright, I’ll bite: what kind of ignition switch issues cause timing chain failure?
Good question. What would happen is the ignition would sometimes cut out when driving at speeds under 30 Mph. Often it would come back on with a jolt. Dealer never figured it out. Happened often enough so I figure it wasn’t doing the chain any good. There were also several design changes on these cars related to the timing chain. Most likely a combination of factors. Didn’t have a code reader at the time. Thought I had retired from ignition work. Finally figured it out myself. Got it going O.K. Chain failed later. The sprocket was really chewed up though.
When you say “ignition would sometimes cut out”, do you mean the engine would stall, but “often begin running again with a jolt”? I’d be leaning towards a crank sensor issue, rather than ignition switch. The term “ignition switch” is actually a poor misnomer, as the mechanical switch activated by the “ignition key” would be better labeled as a starter switch that also provides power to the ignition system, which in this case is governed by the PCM and an ignition module below the coil packs. Another feature of GM vehicles if I correctly recall, was that the PCM had an input from the oil pressure sensor that could disable the fuel pump if the oil pressure went to zero. I believe the intent of this was as a safety feature in the event of a crash, shut the fuel pump off to prevent the electric pump from spraying fuel out of ruptured fuel lines (that would have stalled the engine). Fords used an inertia switch for this purpose.
My father had an ’87 Delta 88 for many years. I’m not sure of the trim level. From new to about 2001. I believe he took it to about 160k miles. It still ran well when he sold it. It was certainly the most reliable car that he ever had. I drove it now and then, including on an 1800-mile fishing trip in the 90’s. Although the 88 was heavily loaded, it returned tank after tank of 28 mpg fuel economy, highway.
I can’t recall any notable repairs he ever suffered. A new set of upgraded struts well along the way and some fuel injectors. The trans never failed. The engine was a version of the 3.8 that I believe is sometimes called the “series 1 -3800”. A roller cam valvetrain and MPFI and a one-piece intake. A new ’92 Buick LeSabre with 3800 he added along the way was, in comparison, a horrific example of constant failure and repair.
Still own two LeSabres, a 2000 (147K miles) and a 2001 (41K miles). GM certainly got a lot right with these cars.
A relative of mine bought a burgundy 1986 Olds 88 new and it was constantly in the shop with issues…..It went through 3 transmissions in the time he owned it and somehow it made it to 150,000 miles.
He swore off GM and traded it in for a new 1993 Toyota Camry which he drove to 220,000 miles with nothing more than routine maintenance.
My father’s last car was an ’88 Olds 98 Regency sedan. He loved how it drove (as a salesman, he spent many hours on the road), but…
At 48K the transmission failed, and at 75K the engine blew. He never forgave GM for that lemon.
After he passed away, we traded in the Olds and my mother’s ’84 Chrysler New Yorker (she always got his hand-me down-car when he got a new ride; that Chrysler was a slug and a story in it’s own right) on a new ’92 Toyota Camry for our mother. The Camry was a revelation compared to the American cars. Solid, reliable, and well-built. She had until she passed away in 2009.
We sold it with <60K on the clock to the lucky guy who responded to the for-sale ad. Still ran like a clock.
“They were not much more than the Cutlass Supreme across the lot in a crisply tailored pair of bell bottoms. ”
Careful.
I got taken behind the woodshed when I suggested that the “All-New” “Downsized” ’77 B-bodies were not much more than Mid-’70s A-bodies with a revised body structure.
The H bodies were great cars and very durable. It is interesting to note my comment of eleven years ago, that they were loads of these cars on the road.
Not anymore. They have all but disappeared.
1a673: ” The C always had about a 3″ wheelbase stretch, another 3″ added to the rear overhang, wider rear doors and a more formal roofline.” That distinction between the C and B bodies (now H) should have been kept- at all costs. Maybe reduce the stretch/overhang to 2″. This would eventually lead to the Lucerne and the unfortunate complete blurring of LeSabre/Park Avenue, 88/98.
The C-body Caddy sedans did get a 3″ WB stretch for 1989, but extending (no pun intended) that to the Ninety-Eight and Electra/Park Ave would’ve helped too, particularly when the newer models came out with more overhang.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classics-1989-cadillac-coupe-de-ville-and-1990-cadillac-sedan-de-ville-better-as-time-goes-by/