Was 1970 Peak GM? It is a divisive question. But I for one, think it may be “the year,” despite all the goodness present in the 1965 GM lineup and the commencement of de-contenting which began in 1967-68. But if for no other reason, recall that 1970 was the last year you could get a C-body GM luxury convertible.
While 1970 was not the end of the GM luxury convertible (the Eldorado would keep Broughamy topless motoring going through ’76), it was the end of the true full-size drop-top land yacht. For the last time, you had your choice of REAL BIG convertibles!
In Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight,
Buick Electra 225,
And Cadillac De Ville flavors. So if you wanted one, now was the time! I would take any of the three, but we’re focusing on Flint’s Favorite today, since that’s the car I stumbled upon at the Hot Rod Magazine Power Tour when they stopped for the evening in Bettendorf, Iowa.
Yes, due to recent safety regulations and the beginning of now-classic GM bean-counting, the ’70 Electra 225 was perhaps not quite as imposing as, say, a 1965 or 1966, but the Nimitz-class convertibles still held their own against any luxury car in the year of our Lord 1970.
All 1970 Electras were, as expected, mildly touched-up for the new model year, and received a new grille, among other refinements. As had been the case for many a year, the Electra received more formal styling over the less-prestigious Wildcat (in its last year) and LeSabre, with more squared-up quarters and standard fender skirts. All of these sheetmetal differences only made the convertible look more imposing, luxurious, and special–at least in your author’s opinion.
Okay, now if I may digress for a moment, I have to mention the black interior. A BLACK interior? On a convertible? I don’t think so! Why would you do this if you planned on driving a convertible in, say, summertime, with, say, the top down?! A great way to flash-fry those little buttons into the backs of your legs! I love this Electra 225 convertible, but definitely would have chosen the white interior instead. It would have contrasted nicely with the black cherry paint, and have kept my legs scar-free in the warmer months.
There were two series of Electras in ’70, the “plain” 225 and flossier 225 Custom. Convertible availability was restricted to the latter trim level, at a regal (get it?) $4802. For comparison’s sake, a Ninety-Eight convertible started at $4914 (yes, the “lesser” Olds was more!) and the Caddy at $6068. The GMs pretty much had the market to themselves, too, as the nearest competitors were the $4769 Chrysler Newport convertible and $5195 300 convertible–also in their last year.
But let’s be honest: In 1970 GM was clearly superior to those slapped-together Mopars, not to mention the fact that Ma Mopar was undergoing yet another one of their oft-repeated crises in 1970. So really, most folks who had the bank account to get a big–and I mean BIG!–luxury convertible likely would have gone for one of the Olds, Buick or Caddy models.
But it was a shrinking market. Only 6,045 Electra 225 Custom convertibles were sold, along with 3,161 topless Ninety-Eights and 15,172 De Ville drop-tops. Clearly the Caddy was the favorite among well-heeled sun-lovers, but as much as I love the Cadillac version (and the one in the brochure pic further above is stunning in Nottingham Green Firemist with white leather), there is something compelling about the less-popular Buick and Olds versions. I was super-excited to view and digitally record this Black Cherry beauty! And if you’re wondering about the title, James Lee Burke is my favorite author, with his Dave Robicheaux novels. Although his fedora-wearing private detective Clete Purcell may favor Caddy drop-tops, I think he’d like this Electra too!
Aren’t your forgetting the Mercury Marquis? This was a medium price car too, competing at least against the Olds and the Buick.
The Marquis was competition more for the B-body LeSabre and Eighty Eight, not the C-body Electra and Ninety-Eight.
Well Ford only had one body to cover both the upper and lower reaches of the medium-price field, as did Chrysler, really.
The Monterey was the B-bodyLeSabre-Delta 88 & Newport fighter, IMHO this went up against the Chrysler 300 and the lesser C-bodies. If a Chrysler 300 can be put in the same class as the latter, the Marquis can be too.
I always thought the Marquis was more in competition with the Chrysler New Yorker, Buick Electra and Oldsmobile Ninety Eight myself.
I was going by MSRPs, but honestly forgot about the Marquis.
An audacious car, especially on today’s roads. I want one.
I wonder if an “8 MPG” vanity plate is already spoken for in SC?
Close. My ’70 Deville usually gets btw 9 and 10 mpg. I saw 13 mpg on one tank about 15 years ago on a road-trip to Florida. I don’t know if the Buick 455 is more or less efficient than the Caddy 472, but I bet the rear gearing is similar.
On long trips my 1971 Riviera would get 13 MPG cruising at 80 MPH. Puttering along at 55 MPH, I did get about 16 MPG.
These 1969-70 Electras certainly made for attractive convertibles. As a lover of big luxury convertibles, I would happily own one of these.
From the picture, I thought the car was black. This black cherry color looks to be a custom touch. GM had a dark maroon then (non-metallic, if memory serves) but it was not this dark. However, I have read that it is difficult to match factory colors with modern paints.
And yes, Tom – I will acknowledge that these Buicks were, on average, assembled much better than a typical 1970 Chrysler. But if given the choice, a 300 convertible would still be my choice over the Electra.
Well, the 300 was good enough for Glen Howard!
The Chrysler 300 from these years is very sharp. It’s the most successful application of Chrysler’s “fuselage” styling theme. The front with the hidden headlights and unique grille makes it work.
I would take either the 300 or the Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight over this Buick Electra, nice as it is.
,,,,but the Nimitz-class convertibles still held their own against any luxury car in the year of our Lord 1970.
Based on the front plate, it’s but a mere Charles F. Adams-class convertible.
IMO, GM’s full-size cars ALL turned into total and complete POSs for 1971. Every one of them. And it’s especially infuriating when you consider that the 1969-1970’s were mostly well-built, still well-appointed despite some decontenting, they still held some swagger.
Of course we have the advantage of hindsight…now 44 years worth, but still I remember when the ’71 full-size Chevies came out and they just…didn’t look…right. Too big and bloated…no sense of style like their predecessors had. And it only got worse ’till the 1977 reboot.
Many of the 1971 full size GM stories have been faithfully recounted here at CC. And to be fair, Ford and Chrysler were just as bad if not worse in 1971. The bean counters were out everywhere like stink bugs here in the East…trying to recoup what the Feds had taken away in new safety and pollution regulations.
These 1970 GMs certainly represent the end of an era, in more ways than one.
A nice way to start a Monday! I had a lot of exposure as a kid to the ’70 Ninety-Eight in LS sedan form, and while I’ve grown to like them, the ’69-’70 Cadillac was never one of my favorites. So, this morning, I’d really rather have the Buick.
It’s clear that prestige convertible buyers preferred the Cadillac. But, any large and loaded 1970 convertible was an expensive proposition. I would have argued that the Marquis was positioned against the C, but apparently the starting price was $4047, not quite in the same league. The 300 was technically more positioned against the Buick Wildcat convertible which started at an eye popping $5,227.
I actually have to wonder if some of the prices noted in The Standard Catalog are right. I’m quite surprised that the Wildcat convertible started just $100 below the Electra ($5,327) convertible, and above the Ninety-Eight. My edition was published in 1982 and I’m seeing some different numbers compared to Tom.
Classic Car Database lists the following prices for 1970 convertibles:
Buick Electra 225 custom – $4802
Wildcat – $4079
Lesabre custom – $3700
Olds 98 – $4914 (obviously now #2 on the Sloan ladder)
Delta 88 – $3708
Mercury Marquis – $4047
Chrysler 300 – $4580
These numbers seem to make more sense than some in my edition of the Standard catalog. Thanks!
The Marquis cheated on price by not making power steering, power disc brakes or power windows standard. Obviously these were standard on the Caddy and I’m pretty sure the Olds and Buick too. Equalize for that and the gap narrows quite a bit. FWIW I’ll be the first to admit the Mercury wasn’t quite in the same league as the GMs as far a presence and public image went. Lincoln-Mercury made great strides in the 70s to give their cars more cachet in this class, and move it away from the “fancy Ford” image. The ’69 Marquis was the first product of this concerted effort. However, it was still just a little too Ford-like. The next version in ’71 took the intended goal to the next level, and the public seemed to agree. Of course, by then the convertible was gone. It’s a good thing Green Acres got cancelled that year. Poor Oliver already had to step down from his Lincoln to the Marquis, a mere LTD would have been to much of an indignity to bear.
“The Marquis cheated on price by not making power steering, power disc brakes or power windows standard.”
Ridiculous for its market position. I’m farily sure that these items, except the brakes were power drums, were all standard on the C by the mid ’50s. I wonder if an automatic transmission figures into this as well. Sometimes price is part of the prestige. Ford did not do this right at all.
Whatever its pricing/equipment issues, the Marquis sold well, if I recall correctly. With the Marquis and the Cougar, Mercury actually developed a distinct identity from Ford, if only for a brief time (the downsized 1979 models killed that effort).
I remember that the Marquis was considered to be a viable alternative to an Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight, Buick Electra and Chrysler New Yorker by the early 1970s. The Colony Park wagons were definitely a cut above the Ford, Chevrolet and Plymouth wagons.
The large Mercury cars in that era (at least the non-station wagons) did have longer wheelbases than the equivalent Fords, up through 1978, so that may be the basis for anyone’s categorizing them with the Ninety-Eight, Electra, etc. Up through 1970 the same could be said for the Pontiac Bonneville (and Star Chief/Executive) relative to the standard-wheelbase large Pontiacs and Chevys.
As for very-late-’60s large convertibles, I think I’d take a fully optioned ’70 Plymouth Sport Fury – a more “youthful” product – over any of those mentioned above.
No doubt, Mercury was moving Marquis iron, and generally doing much better than it had with its top line cars than several years earlier. They sold 70K plus units, not terrible compared to, for example, Oldmobile’s nearly 100k 1970 Ninety-Eights.
But, there was a difference. Mecury moved mostly the base Marquis, and sales of the top Marquis Brougham were relatively weak. Oldmobile generally moved most of its Ninety-Eights in high zoot Luxury trim – the way we usually think of a GM C body. The base Marquis wasn’t much more exiciting than a Pontiac Catalina at the time, and excessively duplicated better equipped versions of Mercury’s own GM B competitor, the Monterey. Packaging and marketing allowed GM to bring in much higher transaction prices while also winning the volume war. In this sense, the Marquis was a weak competitor to the GM C cars.
The classic car database shows that the Buick had standard power steering and brakes, but not windows. The Mercury did not have steering or brakes, but does have an automatic transmission. This does not explain an $800 difference.
Marquis was actually more in the price range of Pontiac Bonneville, Buick Wildcat and Chrysler 300 rather than the GM C-body cars. Automatic transmission was standard on the Marquis and 300 but power steering and power brakes were optional. All three items were optional on Bonneville and Wildcat although very few of them were actually built with manual transmission, steering and brakes.
You must be watching the same reruns of Green Acres on AntennaTV as I am. I just mentioned Oliver’s car purchases in the post on 61′ Lincoln’s yesterday.
Mighty Odd coincidence that we both used this as a familiar frame of reference. Thanx 4 the laugh!
I noticed when the last and first episodes recently aired on the same day. I had never noticed the back of a pre-65, perhaps a 64 Continental on the first episodes at the farm in Hooterville.
So did the Chrysler 300. A 440 Magnum V8 and TorqueFite automatic transmission were standard equipment, but you had to pay extra for power steering or power brakes (drum or disc). Unlike the GM C-cars and Marquis, all-vinyl bucket seats with standard with cushion and armrest were standard (with center console and leather upholstery optional). Each of the GM C-body ragtops also came standard with power windows and driver’s seat, both of which were optional on the 300 (and Marquis).
Having lived through the era, I agree that the 1971 GM big cars were something of a letdown. Certainly they were too bloated.
But I’m curious as to what decontenting occurred earlier, that is, from 1965 to ’70? Did plastic replace metal in the interiors, for example? Hard plastic instead of padded vinyl or cloth? Or were formerly standard features made optional?
I don’t have a clear understanding of this “decontenting” point either. The 71 GM full size were a new design, and so were not as well made as they could have been. I am not sure if things improved for 72 or not. Perhaps the standard equipment list was shorter and some things became optional?
The changes from 1965-70 are interesting to ponder. It is really hard to definitively class them as decontenting, or response to safety regulations, or just style changes.
One example is vent windows. I think that was as much of a style change as anything, with a cost savings as a benefit. Also, the replacement of a lot of interior metal with cheaper-looking plastics was driven mostly by safety issues, but also probably cost less and was also in tune with changes in style.
I don’t think these cars are made from as many expensive parts as their 1965 counterparts, but that situation was probably even worse at Ford and Chrysler.
I see that the vent windows were a nice feature, but they came into being during the 1930’s. Metal dashboards with chrome trim, like my Grandmother’s 1950 Buick, may have been pretty, but in a car crash, with no seat belts much less air bags, not the best thing.
Interesting to ponder de-contenting vs changes in style. Remember the famous line from the Graduate: “plastics”? These new, modern, 70′ plastic dashes pale in comparison to the lovely diecast instrument panels of the 66’s In hindsight, the cars look de-contented compared to their predecessors, but molded, seamless panels were all the rage. (interesting that the ‘cut and sewn’ style is finally making a comeback in the 2010’s!)
You do notice the lack of real wood and leather, which were available in the C Body Buicks and Old’s prior to ‘de-contenting’. And I have always despised the pot metal end caps that came into use in the late 60’s instead of filled seams- very evident in the front of this Electra.
The removal of the vent windows was spurred by styling as much as anything else – Bill Mitchell of GM wanted the side windows to be uninterrupted by vent windows. He equated the removal of the vent windows with the removal of running boards.
The accountants probably weren’t complaining about any cost savings. Drivers complained that removing the vent window meant that you had to wind down the entire side window to get any air on hot days. Of course, if you ordered air conditioning, you didn’t need to wind down the windows to escape the heat.
It’s interesting that the move to eliminate vent windows started with the more expensive cars – the first two cars to eliminate this feature were the 1966 Buick Riviera and Oldsmobile Toronado. Meanwhile, the 1976 Plymouth Valiant and Dodge Dart, and 1977 AMC Matador sedan and wagon, were the last cars to have this feature as standard equipment.
The chrome dashboard trim looked sharp, but there were constant complaints about it reflecting sunlight and causing distracting glares in various road tests of the era. I believe that Ralph Nader even mentioned this in Unsafe at Any Speed. And, as other posters have mentioned, hitting a piece of metal trim in an accident was much worse than hitting a padded vinyl surface. By the late 1960s, not only were auto makers removing bright metal trim from dashboards, but they were also making control knobs and levers flush with various surfaces whenever possible.
With respect to dashboard knobs, there was a change to safer design between 1966 and ’67, in both large and small Pontiacs (and presumably other GM cars). That is, the knobs in those cars were wider and flatter for ’67, presumably to make them less easily able to penetrate a person’s eye socket, etc. This took place even though the dashboards themselves remained metal for another 2 years, either painted or vinyl-covered.
The same was true for the stalks (automatic shift lever, etc.) protruding from the dashboard. In ’66 Pontiacs these were tapered at the tip, whereas knobs were attached to the tips for ’67.
Not only in GM cars. Knobs were wider and flatter in Aussie Falcons too, but often not as well attached to the shaft. Wiper and heater knobs felt soft and loose, compared to those on Dad’s ’67.
I remember taking my driving test in a ’69 Falcon, and the shift knob came off during the test. “Just pull over” the tester said. He got it back onto the shift lever, where it remained for the duration of the test. 🙂
I remember that the 1966 Buick Riviera and Olds Toronado were the first to eliminate vent windows. It was definitely a styling statement. Also, cars were supposed to get “flow-through” ventilation with dashboard vents (as in modern cars), but this really didn’t happen until several years later (A/C cars excepted).
I still miss vent windows, but there’s no way they could be revived today — cost, wind noise (even when closed), and aerodynamic considerations would nix their use.
Our family’s 1967 Chevy Bel Air had the flattened wider knobs as in all GM cars, and even the door lock buttons were changed to a softer, wider plastic design (over a metal shaft of course). The wiper arms were of brushed chrome, rather than smooth, shiny chrome, so they didn’t glare in your eyes. (I recall being “blinded” by the shiny chrome wiper arms in our previous ’61 Bel Air after a long trip on a sunny day — I always liked to look forward through the windshield from the back seat.)
Also, the ’67 GM B- and C-body cars received the new energy-absorbing steering column to prevent the driver from being impaled in a serious frontal crash. This was a mandated safety feature for all ’68 cars sold in the US as of 1/1 of that year.
My 1967 Riviera originally didn’t have a/c and it did have “flow through” ventilation, both through the 3 outlets in the dashboard. With or without the blower operation and two vent positions on the control panel, one with fresh air that could be mixed with some air passing through the heater core or completely bypassing it through different ducting for hot days) and through the two floor vents. The 1966 model also had it but it was a simpler design and the air from the vents couldn’t be heated. A large grille between the backglass and the trunk door allowed air from the passenger compartment to escape.
I did install air conditioning from an identical parts car that I bought two years after I got it and I had to eliminate the cowl floor vents. I could have left the one on the driver side (which wouldn’t have looked correct on this model, when equipped with air conditioning) but the floor vent on the passenger had to be blocked as the recirculation air door now uses it.
See the page in this link to get a description of the standard ventilation system in the 1967 Riviera’s owner manual. The following pages show the manual a/c and Automatic Climate Control.
http://www.oldcarmanualproject.com/manuals/Buick/1967/Riviera/Owners/pages/Text18_jpg.htm
The small blurry picture shows the dashboard of my car before I added a/c in 2002. Sorry for the poor quality, it’s the only one I have!
Chrome trim on dashboards is coming back, I’ve been driving a 2014 Ford Mondeo recently and the glare off the chrome trim on the centre stack can be a pain, worse is the overhead sun reflecting off the aluminum trim around the steering wheel controls. It’s not the end of the world, but it’s also not necessary and not easily avoided because between slight curves on either side there is a large range of reflection, needing some unnatural hand positions on the wheel to block it.
Keep in mind that inflation was perhaps the automaker’s biggest challenge in the 60s and 70s, along with emission and safety regs. The wages/benefits of their union workers were increasing rapidly in the 60s, faster than the rate of inflation, and yet there was pressure to keep price increases as moderate as possible.
Inflation was seen as the biggest threat to GM’s profit margins in the post war era, and the margins would never be as good as they were during the golden pre-war era, when GM essentially mandated/targeted a 30% gross margin. Very high margins were not uncommon in the pre-war era, as wages were still very low. But that would never again be the case in the post-war era, when wage increases put tremendous pressure on margins, and manufacturers of all kinds had to find ways to make their products more efficiently. Just compare a stove or refrigerator from 1948 to one from 1968, or 1988, or…. The process of trying to maintain a decent margin in manufacturing has been the epic battle since WW2.
We can’t really blame them; the “de-contenting” came as an inevitable consequence of rapidly rising wages and an enviable standard of living for, which hit a high point in 1972, for hourly wages.
I think perhaps the de-contenting is more a matter of lower quality. I think the 71 models were of lower quality than the mid-60’s cars. My 78 Olds was also of questionable quality as I recall. My 86 Electra was somewhat better in some ways. Still, things are wobbly in the early 2000’s. My 2002 Seville was very good, but the interior was not up to my expectations. The 2007 SRX was better, certainly than the first SRXs. My current ATS is quite good for what is the new Cimarron of Cadillac’s.
I think perhaps the de-contenting is more a matter of lower quality.
That’s precisely my point, and Tom’s too.
To me de-contenting would be something like making the previous years standard equipment (say power steering and brakes) optional, but then keeping the same base price.
Quality is somewhat subjective. For example my 98 Aurora’s interior had what I considered (subjective) to be dreadful plastics for the dash and door trim. My 2002 Seville was better, but more along the lines of what both the 95 Riviera and Aurora should have gotten. The early to mid 90’s Seville’s were much better.
It should also be remembered that despite the obvious cheapening of the ’71 GM cars compared to previous years – i.e. all Chevrolets having black steering wheels and columns regardless of interior choice, lower compression engines designed for unleaded fuel and the “Mark of Excellence” instrument panels, there was a bit more standard equipment that was previously optional such as power steering and power front disc brakes – also in mid-1971 Turbo Hydramatic transmission became standard on all Buick, Olds and Pontiac B-body cars and all Chevrolet B-body cars with V8 engines.
The ’71s were definitely cheapened, but in all fairness the lower compression engines had nothing to do with cost cutting.
That move was made by the Big Three (not just GM) to ensure that cars would run on unleaded gas without engine damage; catalytic converters were practically required to meet EPA standards for the 1975 model year.
Nice to see these great cars getting some recognition. I second the comment about the color: “black cherry” is non-stock. Also, the story writer mentions he would prefer a white interior, but there was no white offered: Sandalwood was the lightest available color. Lastly, there was 3 trim levels on 1970 Electra, not 2. In addition to base and Custom, there was a Limited. As pointed out, the convertible was available in Custom trim only.
The Classic car database does not list the limited as a series, but old car brochures does show the Custom Limited as a series. This series may have put Buick back on the #2 position on the ladder.
Consulting my Edmunds price guide for 1973, the limited trim is not a series, but an option. So I think the Limited series appears around 1974, and is an optional trim for the Custom Electras before that.
That’s right,
The “Limited” was an option package on the Electra 225 Custom 4 door hardtop starting in 1965. 1965 was also the year when Buick started to use different model numbers for it’s “base” and “Custom” models but the Limited wasn’t a separate model, just a an option package. In 1969, the Limtied option package could be ordered on the Electra 225 Custom Coupe too (but never on the convertible).
In 1970, for the first time, the “Limited” badge replaced the “225” badge on the Electra 225 Custom models that were equipped with the “Limited” package. After 1970, the Electra 224 Custom models with the “Limited” package didn’t even display “Electra”.
In 1974, the “Limited” finally became a separate model with it’s own model number rather than an option package on the Electra 225 Custom model. It was still an Electra but had a different model number (4CT was for the base Electra 225, 4CV for the Electra 225 Custom and 4CX was for the Electra Limited). The same was true for 1975 but the low volume base Electra 225 model (which featured the hard plastic door panels seen on most 1971-76 “B” bodies and plain bench seats without armrests) was cancelled that year, leaving the Electra 225 Custom, and the Limited.
A new “Park Avenue” option package was added to the Limited 4 door hardtop. In 1978, the Park Avenue became a separate model and it was available on the coupes as well…
Here’s an ad for the 1967 Electra 225 Custom Limited model:
http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/NA/Buick/1967_Buick/1967-Buick-Electra-Custom-Limited-Brochure
The ’70 Electras were, to me at 9, the first to have just the tailights changed, and kept the previous metal. Grandparents had a ’69, and out i was surprised to see little change for ’70. This was the begining of gradual phase out of annual style changes.
I think that 1959 was a major redesign of the body, with all new styling. Then the next major redesign is 1965, although how the bodies were changed for better or worse is not clear to me. The 1971 models were also redesigned, but how the bodies are improved is not all that clear to me. The 71-76 models do not get as much year to year styling changes. The early 60’s had yearly changes, I think partly to get rid of the fins.
1961 was another major redesign of the “B” and “C” bodies and 1963 got quite a few changes which were more than the usual new sheetmetal and trim (different windshields and vent windows).
1965 was a major restyle, with another different frame and 1967 was a minor restyle with again new rooflines and all new sheetmetal and rooflines. 1969-70 was another restyle with not much that remained from 1968. The 1971 basic body was kept until 1976.
Having owned and driven many GM cars from 1965 to 1976, I have to say that I do prefer the older ones as they perform better, they usually have nicer trim and their bodies are less prone to rust but the seventies cars were still, in my opinion, better in many ways than most 1980s GM cars. The 1970s did bring better suspensions and brakes, more precise steering, better sound insulation and better safety. My 1965 Wildcat does have 4 wheel drum brakes (with aluminum drums at front which were among the best of the time), a single master cylinder, a non-collapsible steering column, two seat belts for 6 passengers… My 1975 Electra Limited has power discs which are much better, a more precise steering, a better suspension (it’s equipped with the “Firmride” package which probably helps too) and it has airbags for both the driver and front passengers and a very good automatic a/c system. Of course, it’s 455 has only 205 horses, which is good only by the 1980s standards!
Good piece. However, I also don’t understand the ‘decontenting’, which I’ve come across in other curbside classics and comments.
My rough sense is starting in the mid 50s with BOP, Chrysler, and Mercury, automakers started selling more automatics, power steering and brakes. In the 1960s, this trickled down to Chevy, Ford, Plymouth. Also, during that era, engines become more powerful, and more reliable, helping the cycle of more features and paving the way for air conditioniong on a big scale (which came in the 70s and 80s).
My sense is that, as performance declined due to emissions, Detroit tried to justify its offerings by making them more comfortable and plush. While the guy with a 69 307 Chevelle had a car that ran better and was probably quicker, even with a primitive powerglide 2-speed auto, than a 74 Malibu with a 350 or 400 with a 3-spd auto, the 74 Malibu interior was the nicer place to spend time, and the 74 was better for a trip across state on the still relatively new interstates. Compared to my dad’s 75 Ventura/Nova, with its color-coordinated tan trim and cloth seats, many of our friends’ older, bigger cars, seemed cheap inside to me as a kid in the late 70s.
The problem was, that Chevelle might have cost around $2900-3500 new, while the Malibu probably cost $4000-5000 new, a big price increase. Most of it was inflation, a lot of it was the smog equipment and bumpers, and too ease the pain of a worst-performing, slower car, some of it was nicer interiors and better tires and suspension components…and disk brakes.
Other than vent windows, or maybe less chrome (which was cheaper, yes, but also a styling thing), what was decontented?
Looking at GM products, when you compare a vehicle with an all-new body that was introduced in the 1970s with its 1960s counterpart, the 1970s car just looks more “slammed together.” On the 1970s version, exterior panel gaps are bigger and less consistent. From what I’ve seen, beginning about 1965 or so, with each successive major body change, there seemed to be more unfinished exterior joints.
On the inside, there are more exposed screw heads, and the various materials simply don’t look as “rich” or high in quality as compared to 1960s models. As others have noted, some of the interior changes were driven by safety concerns (eliminating metal or chromed parts on the dashboard), but a fair amount of it is obviously the result of cost-cutting.
I have to agree with that. There was some cheapened stuff in the 1970’s cars but the quality of the fabrics improved and so did the comfort, noise level, safety and the number of available and standard accessories.
As for vent windows, unless you’re a smoker or your air conditioner is dead, I don’t see a real benefit for them. I have power vents in my 1965 Wildcat but I don’t use them much (even if the car has no a/c!)… I have a few friends who used to smoke who liked them to throw their ashes out but I hate the wind noise coming from them when they’re open and those in the 1965-68 GM full size cars didn’t allow a lot of air to circulate inside the car if ventilation is what you want…
In fact, the only vehicle that I had which had vent windows that actually did let some air in when they were open was my 1988 Cherokee Limited, but they didn’t close tightly anymore so I had to use a coin or a piece from a matchbook to make them close tightly and I rarely opened them because of that!
A real black beauty. As has been stated, safety rules included getting rid of bright trim on the interior, especially dash to reduce glare and reflections on the inside of the windshield. And lots of extra padding without sharp metal trim was also to increase safety. Shoulder belts (though not in American convertible’s) headrest’s and lap belts for all positions were now all standard. So in that respect content was actually increased. As the 70’s progressed, however the cost cutting became painfully obvious. I think this Buick still looks very high quality. But I sure wouldn’t want my cheeks on that black vinyl on a hot summer day! Vent windows probably were removed for styling at least as much as cost savings.
As to the decontenting: Look at a 1965 Electra dash, then look at a 1970 Electra dash. It speaks for itself. Part of it was due to new safety regulations, but I’m sure GM loved the fact that it cost less too.
The 71 dash is better looking. I do agree that the 70 dash is not good in terms of style. By the mid – 70’s I think the dash is as good as the 65, and much safer.
I think that the dashboards and steering wheels is what steered me away from buying 1969-70 Buicks! (and I got quite a few 1965-76 full size Buicks in the past, still own 3, a 1965 Wildcat Custom, 1967 Riviera GS and a 1975 Electra Limited).
Many years ago, I almost bought a fully loaded 1970 Electra Limited but just couldn’t like it’s interior. It kept the instrument cluster of the 1968 but in a dashboard that just doesn’t look right.
Even the Riviera (who had not much changed since 1968) seemed to have all wrong changes. The same new (and ugly) padded steering wheel as the featured car, and the last bits of real wood that could have been ordered in the 1968 Riviera was replaced by woodgrain plastic… And a lot more woodgrain plastic! The Riviera also had full instrumentation in 1967, still had a temperature gauge in 1968 but the 1969 edition went to all idiot lights, including the strange “Hot” and “Stop Engine” lights that Buick used on it’s full size, big block cars from 1969 to 1974.
A perfect example of both de-contenting and lower quality. Replacing the real wood with plastic is de-contenting and lowering the quality. Taking away the gauges and replacing them with idiot lights is a de-contenting too.
we sat on towels in my mom’s convertible with black vinyl seats!… easy solution – I think eventually we just bought it terry-cloth seat covers for summers.
1970 was GM’s best year, they hadn’t quite made the switch to using the cheapest parts only on their cars…
The best part was that big beauty was sitting in the middle of a row of Mustangs and still holding its own.
It has been a long time since I drove or rode in a Mustang(of any era) but if mustang seats are anything like my Firebird’s seats then I would be envying that Buick owner for the comfy ride he/she achieves driving it.
I have always found the 69 and 70 Electra to be handsome cars and the 69 and 70 Ninety-eight to be very ugly. The same years for Cadillac had handsome exteriors with very cheap appearing dash and door panel.
I’d expect to have a lot of trouble telling the Buick & Olds apart, how were they allowed to look so similar?
I think all three are quite similar bodies, but the Olds and Buick’s front end is more alike than different, while the Cadillac’s is different. The tail lights for the Olds and Cadillac are similar but Buick is different. But all three are similar. This is partly due to the absence of the tail fins and all the chrome that was used in the 50’s and early 60’s.
You have me looking at James Lee Burke books on Amazon. Which should I start with?
Any of them, really. The first one I read was The Tin Roof Blowdown, which was set during the 2005 flooding in New Orleans. I liked it so much I went to the library and started reading them in chronological order. I believe his first novel was The Neon Rain.
My first observation of GM decontenting was when I went to check out a friends father’s new ’68 Impala and noticed it did not have a clock, the 327 V-8 had no dual exhaust and the cool chrome interior window trim was now painted. The ’63 Impala he traded in had the clock and chrome window trim standard, and a 4 bbl and duals came with the 327.
In later years popular features like automatic, power steering, brakes were made standard, but things that the manufacturers thought wouldn’t be noticed were eliminated. Stuff like the black only steering wheels on Chevys, eliminating underhood lamps and door courtesy lights, unfinished trunk trim, etc. Tachometers were added, but oil and battery gauges disappeared.
I’m surprised the Deville convertible sold far more that the 225 and 98 combined. I guess those with the resources and desire for a huge droptop just said the hell with it and went all the way. I agree that 1970 was probably GM’s apogee. The rot set in with the ’71 re-design and they never fully recovered.
Regarding sales of the DeVille convertible versus sales of the Electra and Ninety-Eight, both Buick and Oldsmobile offered convertibles in their “regular” full-size line and intermediate line. The Electra and Ninety-Eight thus had in-house competition.
If the convertible body style was supposed to be more “sporting” than other body styles, it seems like a better fit for an intermediate Skylark or Cutlass than a full-size car.
The Caprice replaced the Impala as top Chevy in 1965, so not really comparable. By 1968 the 396 would be the engine to have.
Nice car, but if I could, I`d rather have the Olds 98 convertible of the same year with all the catnip-at about the same price. I just think its a better looking car.