Call the Curbside Police as well. When I posted a 1975 Grand LeMans recently, investigating the reasons for its unpopularity, I got a lot of responses saying that the car was simply overstyled and ungainly. To that I say, well, it’s a Colonnade, that’s just how they look. And to that end, I think the Pontiac’s treatment complemented the basic body pretty well. Nevertheless, I suspect this 1976 Regal that Eric Clem spotted will be more popular among curbistas.
That strikes me as questionable, as it wears Sheer Look front and rear clips on a body never meant to convey that design language. Even with two looks on one car, though, watch it be better received than last week’s LeMans. In as much as opinions can be “wrong,” I’m sure my take on the Pontiac is considered “incorrect,” but I would argue that the quad rectangular headlights on the later Colonnades simply don’t belong and that versions of the platform with more squared-off ends don’t work as well as those with a flowier interpretation of the basic shape (except the Cutlass, which still looked good).
What’s more important for our purposes this summer is how excellent this shot is; there’s a 1970 AMC Rebel as well as a Benz W123 captured here. I’ll keep the focus of this sighting limited, so you’ll hear about the Rebel later.
This ad for a ’77 Model, from a November ’76 Sports Illustrated, perfectly captures the spirit of the time. Like our featured car, the one in the ad features Rallye wheels; just the thing to underscore the sporty image Buick was trying to cultivate in the ad. Note the contrast between the trim, athletic bodies of the models and the overall avoirdupois of the Regal. GM was at the head of the pack when it came to intermediate chassis handling, but somehow I still imagine real-life basketball players driving something a bit leaner once they had enough money to choose.
The downsized models which came immediately after these still seemed a bit less than sporty, although the T-Type and Grand National models would finally make good on the promises of this ad a few years later. They traded these cool wheels for proper machined aluminum pieces; these Rallyes are more reminiscent of GM’s Big Block performance heritage. With the disc brakes poking through those holes, this shot is a good example of the cars’ overall 1970s-transition.
The squared off rear end deserves more large, upright glass to go with it; the pre-’76 horizontal treatments worked a lot better but as styling went, Buick intenders could do worse with the more expensive contemporary Riviera. Especially when the Regal could still be optioned as lavishly as anyone could need; with this car, and the Riv in addition to the Century, the LeSabre and the Electra, Buick had personal luxury fairly well covered. And all those coupes carried on for a few more generations before being canned, with the 1978-1981 Century being the first to go into terminal decline once the aeroback model came out. This slanted and rectangular rear treatment was possibly meant to prepare people for that ultimately disappointing styling solution, but luckily the Regal made it through the turn of the decade with its dignity comparatively intact.
Related reading:
Curbside Classic: 1977 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Brougham – Finest Brougham In All Of Hampton, IL!
Curbside Classic: 1977-78 Buick Riviera – A Short Life In Hard Times
Curbside Classic: 1977 Pontiac Grand LeMans – Retrograde Colonnade
I like these. Don’t mind the bluff front with smoothed out body, it works better with the 5mph bumpers. As I said in another post, these are rare and their Century stablemates even rarer. Until I saw an Ebay listing for a Pace Car replica I’d forgotten the Century had a sloping grille.
Your link to the 1975 Grand LeMans article is broken.
I’m rather torn on this. I agree that the flat front on this Buick is rather boring compared to the lines of the rest of the car, and foreshadows how car styling digressed into simple boxy forms as the 70’s progressed into the 80’s. I don’t find it offensive though.
The Pontiac from the other day has some good angles and bad angles. I don’t like the Grand LeMans waterfall grille, and the fender skirts on the brochure car don’t work for me at all. The standard LeMans grille looks ok though.
I’d prefer a contemporary Monte Carlo over either the Pontiac or the Buick. It looks the best to me.
More related reading. 🙂
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/my-curbside-classic-1976-chevrolet-monte-carlo-landau-hope-you-like-green/
This is the A-special ‘formal’ roofline, but on the shorter 112″ wb. The Grand LeMans used the fastback A roof. The Regal had same wb as Cutlass Supreme coupes. Starting in 1976, the Olds and Buick A-S’s shared doors, which led to the badge jobs of later GM’s.
I agree that the Regal blends in more compared to the Grand Prix and Monte Carlo, but then these sold well and some liked the understated look.
Buicks were not called ‘old folks’ cars in the mid 70’s, at least not the mid sized line. 20-something Boomers loved Personal Lux coupes then, until Oil Crisis II, and suddenly switched to Accords, etc.
I’m not sure, but I think the Buick 455 was still optional for their 1976 mid size line. ‘Citation needed’.
1974 was the last year a 455 was available in the Century. It had 230 hp and 355 ft-lbs torque and came with the THR 400/
In the mid ’70s, the various GM divisions were not at all consistent in how long they offered engines of a given size in their intermediates, and Buick seemed to place the least emphasis of any on keeping larger V8s in the lineup. Pontiac and Olds offered the 455 in their A-bodies through 1976, and the 400/403 through 1977. Chevy offered the 455 in A-bodies through 1975, and the 400 through 1976. Buick by contrast never offered anything larger than a 350 after 1974.
Did Buick ever offer the 455 as an across-the-board option in its midsizes, or was it always restricted to certain packages?
In the Colonnade cars, Buick offered the 455 across the board for a couple of years in the early years of that generation, you could get a 455 in a basic Century, a Regal or in the Century Gran Sport. Buick did drop the 455, but at the same time it restored the re-purchased V6 to their line up.
Pretty good, for a Colonnade. Maybe being cloaked in shadow helps?
It’s quite similar to the wildly popular Olds Cutlass of the same year. The Olds got the details right and was the king of the A coupes. Still, this car works fine, it sold very well and was Buick’s most popular car in ’76. I’m not a fan of the rear treatment, the ’75 and earlier cars were better and more “Buick”.
I do agree with Perry’s comments that GM was adding a lot of shear look cues to its cars to ease the transition and create continuity. No argument, it mostly worked.
My father had both 73 and 76 Regals. I always preferred the lighter looking 73 front end to the 76 which looked like it was intended for an Electra 225. I did like the bucket seat interior on the 76. Today I would take either, they were both pretty decent cars.
It does lean towards the Electra 225 look, when they started to spread across car lines, square sealed beams became a “quick update” to make an early 70’s car look more contemporary.
One other reason for square lights was aerodynamics, for the newly implemented CAFE laws.
The bluff front that doesn’t take advantage of the square light’s reduced height calls baloney on that reason. Was there ever a car with square sealed beams that couldn’t have fit a pair of 5-3/4″ or even a 7″ round light in the front end?
I prefer the Grand LeMans to this Regal, and not by a little. The Buick’s flat front is the most boring of all of them. The rear with the too-little taillights in the fenders complimented by the afterthought lights over the bumper are unattractive (and look no better on the Ford LTDII). The side is bland. Cutlass did everything better than this Regal.
The Pontiac is a slightly different breed, with the faster roof. Buick’s version (the Special) couldn’t pull off what Pontiac could. So, give me a Cutlass or a LeMans (or maybe a GP) if I have to take a Colonnade. The Chevy and Buick have the least appeal to me.
“avoirdupois” takes me back to the glory days of reading Car & Driver in the early 90’s. Thanks for that 🙂
I felt silly using that word too, Laurence, and now that I know your watchful eye will be on the look-out for cliches, I’ll be sure to be more creative with my word choice. Look for future references to excess mass to take the form of “stretch marks,” “fat flaps,” and “panty lines.”
I was extremely bothered by this Regal’s styling when it came out. That rear end treatment is very similar to the same year’s Old’s Toronado- what the hell was it doing on a Buick? Considering that bladed tailights had been a Caddy signature for years, what the hell were they doing on the Toronado to begin with?
Chrysler later aped them for the 1980 Le Baron. Regardless, I hated all the iterations. The vertical and horizontal taillights reminded me of the man who wore both belt and suspenders. Make up your mind.
Well put! There was too much transfer of styling cues from one division to another, resulting in an uncertain GM-ishness about all their designs -“It’s a GM car, Jim, but which one?”.
I once mistook a downsized ’77-ish big Caddy for a Chevy – only difference that stood out for me was the wonky B-pillar.
I always liked the side profile of the 76 Century and I don’t mind the back end but the split lenses under the headlamps make it look like the car has bifocals. Not exactly a youthful look. Dig those headbands on the girls in the ad, so 70s.
Oh dear! Bifocals on the front, and Caddy-like taillight blades at the rear – no wonder younger buyers turned away from Buick!
On the contrary, Regals were hot cars through the end of the RWD G-body run in 1987. In fact, all of the GM G-Bodys were a must-have in the high school parking lot throughout the 80s. Don’t forget the Grand Nationals and Regal T-Types.
Wasn’t until the 90’s, after the Grand National was long gone, that Buick got its old image. Still trying to shake it off, too.
say what you will, but the 2-door Colonnades ushered in the era of “personal luxury cars”. GM’s were first, and they were the best–and I’m sure they were very profitable. Chrysler followed with the Cordoba in 75 (became their top seller), and when the Gran Torino Elite couldn’t cut it, Ford brought the resized, very successful 77 T-Bird.
That said, I thought the 2-door Cutlass Supremes were the best looking ones. But I’d take that Regal. I thought the worst ones were the ‘low-end” Olds and Buicks, which had different front ends.
The 1976-1977 Regals are my favorite among the seventies mid-size offerings. When I was 16, a classmate drove up in a brand new, loaded ’77 Regal Landau. Metallic blue with a white landau top, road wheels, V8, etc., from the moment I saw it, I was smitten. And, since my dad promised me a new car (provided certain stipulations were met and they were) when I got my license, I immediately went from wanting a Mustang II Ghia or Camaro Type LT to wanting a new Regal.
The new ’77 Regal I got was a V8 Landau but not quite as loaded as my the one my friend Jeanie drove. For the ’77 Regal year, a special “Carolina Regal” was available as a regional offering. Mine was Carolina blue with the white vinyl top, road wheels, V8, and all white vinyl seating contrasted with medium blue carpet and interior trim. I missed out on power windows and the like, but had tilt, cruise, and am/fm. I was very proud of my new Regal and it served me well through my college years.
I was very fortunate to have parents who saw to it that I had this new car as most of my classmates were driving clapped out cars from the mid to late sixties and early to mid seventies.
Sounds like a very nice car–V8 meant 350 for Buick, which meant it was not slow.
The Regal V6s were. The Cutlass with the 260 was almost as bad–but the 260 was much smoother and lasted forever.
Interestingly, feature car doesn’t have a landau roof. Very rare for an up-level Regal with opera windows.
It’s funny how “Cutlass” styling looked better on the larger Colonnade and “Regal” styling on the smaller G-body. I love how GM kept the looks going, scaling them up or down as needed. I appreciated the Regal for being an attractive car but wondered year after year through gas crises and a flood of imports… why are these cars still so popular? Are they really that nice to drive?
Yes, VERY nice to drive. Accurate, quick geared power steering, disc front/finned rear drum brakes, torquey, quiet engine, automatic transmission well matched to the engine with quick & smooth part throttle downshifts, restrained, quietly classy interiors…….the “Total Package” of this time period. It Works Well.
That’s what I suspected. They were pretty cars and not too big but there had to be something special about the drive to make them that popular. I have never driven a Colonnade but have the 1977+ B/C bodies and love the way they feel for the reasons you mention. Well put!
“but there had to be something special about the drive to make them that popular.”
Or . . . . Ford and Chrysler’s efforts in this segment were so weak that these cars walked off with the market by default. Up through 1976, the Cordoba was the only credible competition for the GM cars, but by then, so many people had heard so many Chrysler horror stories, that it was a miracle that the Cordoba did as well as it did. Had Buick brought out a car with the Doba’s looks, they would have sold twice as well as they did under the Chrysler banner.
The two arguments are not mutually exclusive, it should be said.
Actually from 1972-1974 Ford led the intermediate segment with the best selling intermediate line. As someone who has a great deal of experience behind the wheel of Colonnades and still has regular access to them, I can say there “handling” has been greatly exaggerated on this site. Yes, a properly equipped Colonnade was very competent for its day, like the Grand Am or those equipped with HD suspension, but the majority weren’t anything to write home about. If you read contemporary road tests from this era, there isn’t any they seem to put the Colonnades head and shoulders above the Mopar or Ford competition of its day.
Car and Driver tested a 1973 Ford Torino Sportsroof with the upgraded suspension, and liked it a great deal. The magazine even said that it had a better combination of ride and handling than the 1973 Oldsmobile Cutlass S with the upgraded suspension it had tested earlier in the year.
I’d be willing to bet that very few intermediates of any make from this era were ordered with the upgraded suspension. Most buyers wanted the dream-whip ride, not BMW-like handling.
Anyone choosing a mid-1970s intermediate today based on handling abilities is likely to be sorely disappointed. Compared to what we are used to in 2014, they are all terrible.
Yup if you read the period road tests/comparisons you’ll find that the GM’s weren’t universally regarded as the best handling cars as you might assume from what you read here. Often you’ll also find that the Mopars were rated at the bottom of the pack in handling despite what many people claim nowadays.
IMHO a large reason for the popularity of the GM A bodies of the Colonnade period was the gargantuan size of the full-size GM products of this era. The bloated ’71-’76 GM full-sizers were the largest and heaviest cars in their history. De-tuned engines made them slugs and gas mileage was poor. A ’74 Le Sabre weighed 4,400 pounds was 226″ long. Compare that to 10 years earlier when a ’64 Le Sabre clocked in at 3,712 lbs. and 219″ long.
Although trimmer than the huge full size models, the Colonnade A bodies were still large cars. A ’74 Regal sedan weighed 3,850 lbs. and was 216 ” long, quite close to the ’64 Le Sabre. They were also generally available with the same engines as their big-brothers, which provided better performance and mileage in the smaller package. I can envision visitors to a mid-’70’s Buick or Olds showroom ready to trade in their old 88’s and Le Sabres being aghast at the size of the new models. However, that Cutlass or Regal over there looked just about right. It was pleasantly styled, came with a V-8, and was cheaper too! The A bodies became the new “right size” family cars. Fortunatley for GM they saw the handwriting on the wall and returned to some semblance of sense with the downsized ’77 B bodies.
Many middle aged parents ‘downsized’ to Cutlasses, etc, from bigger cars. For the same or less $, a loaded Cutlass/Regal/Monte was a better buy then a plain as day Impala/LeSabre/88.
GM did invent the mid size Personal Lux segment with the 1969 Grand Prix, which made the same year T-Bird a dinosaur.
The ’76-’77 Regal 2 doors are still one of my favorite cars of this time period,
I like it’s restrained looks; much more quietly classy and dignified than the same year Monte Carlo or LeMans…..or LTD II.
Properly optioned (BUICK 350-4bbl v8, 3 speed turbohydramatic transmission, gauge package, F41 suspension, factory A/C, Buick’s conservative but upscale “crushed velour” interior), these Regals drove excellent! Their midnight blue/turquoise exterior paint, with the Buick chrome “Road Wheels” was a most attractive overall package. It drove much more nimble than you would think a car of this size & weight would be!
I agree–the Monte Carlo and Grand Prix looked gaudier and overdone, the Cutlass and Regal were classier.
Properly optioned, the GM cars handled surprisingly well for their bulk (4100-4300 lbs).
If I could pick, I’d take an “entry-level” 76-77 Cutlass Supreme–standard bench seat, column shifter laundau roof, full wheel covers–with an Olds 350 V8 and handling suspension (I thought F41 was Chevy only).
That said, an even better car would have been a 77 Caprice, similarly optioned, with a Chevy 350, or a Delta 88 2-dr.
The 77 GM large cars were better cars for sure, yet today I’d rather have the Cutlass as a toy, it just captures the 70s better…”personal luxury”, lol.
Besides trucks, that was the last profitable, competition-free niche Detroit would have until the Explorer kicked off the SUV era.
Which is interesting in itself that Ford, not GM, founded the new niche. Yet in 10 yrs, GM’s SUV would assert themselves over Fords in that segment. No one ever rivaled GM in the personal luxury sweeptstakes of the 70s.
Whya bench seat? I never understood why people ordered a “personal” luxury coupe with a bench.
Ever try to get it on in one of those cars with bucket seats?
I think Oldsmobile’s version of the F41 suspension package was known as FE3. You could tell cars so equipped by the large rear sway bar. Heavy car or not, it worked. I think the Cordoba and Charger/Magnum had a credible heavy duty suspension option, but what I seem to recall was that Mopars so equipped were not exactly refined in the NVH department.
Buick’s large automobiles in 1977 became much more almost identical in size especially once the RWD B (including the B “Special” for the new Le Sabre based Riviera) Bodies and the RWD C-Bodies now were using the identical chassis that had been in used by the 1973-77 RWD A-Body (including the A “Special” used by the Chevelle Malibu based Monte Carlo and Pontiac Grand Prix). The 1974-76 RWD E-Bodied Buick Riviera was included here just for the sake of comparison were actually based on the shortened chassis shared with its larger FWD E-Body Cousins like the Oldsmobile Toronado and Cadillac Eldorado.
As has been covered here many times before the down sized Bs did not ride on the Colonnade A chassis. Yes they shared the same basic architecture but so did the A’s and B’s for years before that. Nothing significant chassis wise interchanges between a Colonnade and a B Box.
I have stated this here many times, but the myth continues to live on. There are some components between the two car lines that can be used on the A-body cars, such as coil springs, spindles, brakes, front sway bars, but they are different from the original parts (ie the spindles are taller). The front suspension on these Colonnades actually share some parts with the 1970-81 Camaros, like the control arms and sway bars.
A-arms, trailing arms, rear axle assembly, springs, shocks, sway bars all interchange even spindles. When you get into the mid-80s you have to make sure you match the ball joints to the spindles as the tapers are different.
The trick is the bushings on the 77-96 B-body parts are a bit wider at the bolt hole, so you either rebush the parts, or grind down the metal sleeve the bolt runs through. It’s better to rebush as the bolt sizes are different between the two.
I know this as I’ve got a 77 Chevelle with a fair amount of 96 Caprice parts on the suspension. I’ve had 20 years of fooling around with the 73-77 cars and 77-96 Bs that I’ve learned what interchanges with what easily. Next time I go to the yard and run across a 9C1 Caprice, I’m getting the steering gear out of it.
You are correct as the frames are different, but not really all that different, basically rear of the axle kick-up its different, but from the front bumper to the rear axle, they are virtually identical to the point that they can bolt up. The Bs have the same 116″ wheelbase that the 4 door 73-77 As have. the B’s are longer overall, 214″ vs 209″ and lack the rearmost crossmember that the As have.
The 73-77 cars do not share much at all with the earlier 64-72 cars save for sway bars.
The side rails for the frames are completely different in there shape, and the rear of the b-body chassis has no cross member. They are similar in overall design, but clearly different.
The rear axles from the B-bodys will bolt in but they are not the same. And the b-body axles came in varying widths and bolt patterns over the years as well as 7.5″ or 8.5″. The rear trailer arms are also different. According to the info I have from a Hollander book, the front control arms interchange with the 1970-81 F-bodies, 75-79 X-bodies but not the 77-96 A-bodies. They may bolt on, but they are not the same.
The shocks for the rear are the same, but the fronts are different from the B-body. The B-body shocks will work, but the part numbers are the same as the 78-88 A/G body cars. Saginaw steering boxes for GM cars swap between different chassis designs, they were typically not platform specific.
When the Nova/Camaro sized RWD A later becoming G-Bodies were Downsized in 1978, they were now based on a completely different newer BOF Construction not based from the previous generation’s 1973-77 chassis nor the RWD B and C-Bodies which were downsized the year before. Not ALL BOF Constructions were similar or even identical to one another. The 1971-76 RWD B and C-Bodies used different BOF Construction than the 1973-77 RWD A-Bodies. In addition the RWD Y-Bodied 1968-82 Corvette also sits on a different BOF Construction and hence the smallest car to have this type of construction. The Downsized FWD E-Bodied Cars in 1979 were also based from BOF Construction but I am not sure if they were based from a modified chassis version of the RWD A/G-Bodied Cars downsized the year before or not since their size differences were not really that much compared to the 1977-96 B-Bodies.
I think the rectangular headlight treatment worked better on the ’76-’77 Cutlass Supreme/Brougham/Salon than it did on the other Colonades. Notice that in the case of the Buick and Olds coupes the front end change came with toned-down front fenders and quarter panels (the Olds lost it’s Nixon-esq jowls, the Buick lost it’s front fender swoop). It all makes for an interesting styling transition between the ’73 Colonades and the downsized ’78 coupes.
I prefer the BASE bench because the buckets weren’t especially supportive, and I like the sense of room without the console and floor shifter.
The uplevel bench came with the ‘pillow look’ –very 70s, but I didn’t like it then and don’t now.
The Colonnades were part of any person’s childhood “scenery” who grew up in the late 70’s and 80’s. They must have been decent cars, as I remember that many were still on the road in the late 80’s when I learned how to drive.
my parents 76 Chevelle lasted longer than any of its direct replacements. It was their primary car for 8 years, and 100,000 miles, mom got a 84 Olds 88, and dad sold the 69 Chevelle, and he drove the 76 for another 8 years, Mom got a 92 LeSabre, dad got the Olds and I got the same car I came home from the hospital in 16 years earlier. I drove it 8 years, and it outlasted Mom’s 92 LeSabre, and the 84 Olds, the 87 Dakota as well that dad bought to replace the Olds.
What finally did it in, was losing a wheel and the lack of sheet metal parts to fix the rust issues it had here in Texas, and mom and dads insistence that I get something newer to drive to college. It also had 200,000 miles on it at that point, and was drinking oil like a fish to the rate of a quart every 200 miles, despite having 100,000 miles on a rebuild.
Fast forwards 10 years and I buy a $300 77 Chevelle sedan which after taking care of a few time-worn parts, is still as solid and reliable as that 76 was. It’s more reliable than my 95 Explorer is actually.
I prefer the grand lemans. I believe the ‘sheer look’ design language was basically mandated because of the introduction of rectangular headlights. They simply would not look right on a car with a flowing and rounded front end. The worst lookers IMHO sported the stacked quad headlights. Ironic considering how fantastic stacked headlamps looked during the mid-60’s. I’m by no means a Collonade fan, but I will admit they were far more unique and ambitiously designed than mid-sizers from Ford and Chrysler of that era. Not to mention significantly better handlers and far less rust prone. This regal isn’t exactly a bad looking car, as much as an obvious stop gap between two very different eras of design. My personal favorite Collonade is the 1973 Grand Am with the rubber nose and color coded bumpers, particularly in sedan form.
I have only ever come across one of these as the Cutlass was much more popular in my area at the time. Perhaps it was because there were always a lot more Chevrolet-Oldsmobile dealers than Pontiac Buick dealers in Canada at the time?
The one I had was a 1977 grampy car, in pristine condition, and it even had the run sheet. He ordered all the HD stuff like cooling and suspension but ZERO on power options. It had a bench seat and a 3.8 litre rough fire V-6.
That’s the reason a beater lot got it. With no power anything, a/c or V-8, it was hard to sell for good dough. The V-6 was rough and gutless. All colonnades drove quite well for their day and this one was no exception and I am sure a nice Buick 350 would make it a nice car indeed, even with cranker windows.
I can only wonder what the Colonnade could have been if it had been designed for one brand identity alone and one “face” to last the entire product cycle.
A ’77 Regal was Gram’s last car – it replaced her ’67 Buick Special. Dark green, white leather and half vinyl roof. Every option except power windows.
“Gram, why didn’t you get power windows?”
“Because honey, if I’m driving over the bridge and have a heart attack, I can still get out as it’s sinking”.
“Gram, those doors weigh 30 pounds each, the river is highly polluted, your wet mink stole will weigh you down, and besides, you just had a heart attack”.
“Honey, don’t talk back. It’s unbecoming”.
Gram was a tiny immigrant woman weighing maybe 120. She drove it until 1991 or so when my dad inherited it, and then passed to me when he died 2 years later. It sat at mom’s house forever,with the intention of rebuilding, etc. Time and distance get in the way; finally I called the local Buick club to offer it to anyone interested and there was.
Gram was a hoot, and I miss her egg and pepper sandwiches to this day.
Still better looking than most crap being made NOW.