We’ve got two big features today, so we’ll just take a short break with this long Surburban I saw down the street the other morning. Nothing earth shattering or exciting, like Roger’s Gordon Keeble, but as I told you, I’m documenting the CCs I see in a 5-6 block radius. And these aren’t getting commoner either.
And this one is in exceptional shape. Are they becoming collectible?
I can’t peg the exact year, but it’s certainly towards the end of its very long life (1973-1991). It overlapped the new generation of pickups by a number of years. Why GM didn’t invest in a new Suburban is a bit hard to say, except maybe it was purely a matter of prioritizing their development/tooling investment dollars, given how the mid-late 80s were a time of many new car introductions at GM, and many/most had bad starts, like the GM-10 fiasco. Meanwhile, what else were folks going to buy? There was nothing like the Suburban on the market, and I don’t have time to look up the stats, my guess is its sales were better then aver during the latter part of its long run. It had become the soccer-mommy-mobile of choice in Texas, and that phenomena was spreading quickly.
Those 15″ wheels and tires sure look tiny from today’s vantage point.
Personally, I can’t see a Suburban (or Tahoe) being thought of as collectable, but I have been known on rare occasions to be wrong. 😉
Like everything else, only time will tell, but these things are HUGE.
Now, the Ford Excursion, which is even longer than a Suburban, being somewhat rare – that I can see someday as being collectable.
One of the partners my wife works for has a mint 1975 Suburban with original everything and about 160,000 miles on the odometer. He paid less than $4K for it a decade dgo and that vintage ‘Burban has appreciated to more than double. It “starred” in the movie “Heaven Is ForReal” and has made several appearances in television shows filmed here in Winnipeg. He more than earned back the cost of the truck!
An expedition collectable over a square body suburban?????? Wtf? I can’t believe you posted.
Coming from a ford fan this comment is redundant. I own a 1981 Suburban and made a few modifications. My suburban would eat fords for breakfast especially ford crap excursions.
Absolutely, they’re collectible. Here in the midwest, prices are high for a good-condition Suburban of this generation.
The same-generation pick-up trucks–and also Blazers/Jimmys–are already collectors’ items. I think there’s no debate that the preceding generation (both pick-ups and Suburbans) are collectible. The Suburbans may be lagging by about 5 years behind the pick-up trucks, but their time is coming. Invest now!
It’s like the 1970s wagons, which people also doubted would ever be collectible. Prices rise first for the sports cars, then the luxury coupes, then the luxury sedans, then the pick-up trucks, then the haulers (wagons, SUVs, and minivans). Even humble Falcons and Mavericks have their fans. Yes, I think that minivans will be collectible, too! A 1st-generation wood-paneled Town & Country minivan will be a real attention-getter at car shows in 10 yrs–maybe sooner. They’ll never reach the stratospheric prices of GTOs or Mustangs, but you won’t be laughed off the lawn either.
Here in the midwest these have always had a deep fan base and I do not doubt that they will be going up in value, not down. This was one of the very few examples of the modern GM identifying a new market and hitting it with a bulls eye. The only mystery was why it took Ford so long to respond (and why Chrysler never did).
These became the 1980s-90s equivalent of the old-style big luxury station wagon like the Buick Estate Wagon or the Chrysler T&C. While the minivan served the plebiscite, these were for the gentry. At the time I had trouble with the idea that a wagon based on a pickup chassis was worth the kind of money they were charging, mine was not that common of a view among those willing to shell out.
They still aren’t worth the money they are charging IMO, you can’t even buy modestly equipped models anymore. But GM keeps selling them, so good for them.
I agree that the later years of this generation really did become a “gentry” family hauler, at least for the original buyers. Seemed like there were more of these gussied up with custom graphics, visors, wheel flares, etc than not, at least in my part of the Midwest. That almost completely disappeared with the next generation.
Investing deeply in large product that guzzles gas but is meant to sell in bulk to North American middle class wallets is perhaps one of the biggest automotive gambles there is. The rewards are vast when times are good, like the 1965 Mopar C bodies, and the risks are awful, like the 1974 Mopar C bodies.
And, you can never quite predict the next CAFE assault on business plans.
Hyundai Motor Group’s closest attempt at this market in North America was very short lived with its 2009 Borrego. It probably felt like having a 1974 Sport Suburban (Fury Wagon for those that might find this confusing with a certain Chevy) in the showroom.
With the triple threat of recession, fuel price spikes and CAFE, the bruiser cruiser market is not for the faint of heart.
I’ll go out on a limb and say that this generation of Suburban will be the next Grand Wagoneer (1963-1991) and there will be someone with a business dedicated to restoring them to their former glory and selling them for absurd prices.
+1
Maybe. But, the crisp ’60s vintage style of the Grand Wagoneer is very different from the GM Colonnade inspired style of the ’73-91 Burbs.
The Wagoneer will probably always be at a premium over a Suburban.
Yeah but we’ll run out of Wagoneers before we run out square Suburbans.
No question that the Wagoneer will always carry a large premium over a Suburban. Businesses offering refreshed or excellent Wagoneers (like Wagonmaster) started almost immediately after they went out of production. The trend towards the well healed buying those things really started in the early 80s and just never abated when they finally shuffled out of production. It’s hard to think of any vehicle made in large numbers with a similar demand profile.
Perhaps. While the old-school look of this generation may be popular, I’ll hazard that the following generation of Suburbans are better vehicles. This is purely by the fact that these Suburbans seemed to have mostly disappeared from the roads around here years ago, while GMT400’s are everywhere.
A lot of that probably has to do with living in salt country. The rust resistance of these Suburbans (and especially it’s pickup cousin) never seemed to be very good.
Like all trucks they have always held their value well. That’s because when you need a truck, you need a truck, and new ones kept going up in price. So most were eventually used pretty hard. I don’t see many at all anymore, considering how many were sold.
I don’t know if I have ever seen one restored or preserved as a collectable like I have pickups and even Blazers from that era. This is a nice example, in those later years so many of them around here in the Midwest had custom graphics or conversions of some sort.
Our detachment had one of these to use in Angola in the early 90s along with one of the big Ford Broncos. Typical government stripper model with the single headlight grill, dog dish hubcaps, crank windows & rubber floor mats. Compared to what else was on the road, our Suburban was really a nice vehicle. Seating comfort on the standard benches, the always great GM A/C and yes, even the reliability were outstanding.
As Americans, we had zero support infrastructure in Angola. GM cars were never popular there. If our Suburban ever broke, spare parts were a long way away. Luckily, it never broke. For some odd reason, the only American cars that seemed to have been sold in quantity in Angola were Chryslers. At least that is what we saw most frequently destroyed along the road as we traveled.
Western military detachments had Volvos or Renaults. Eastern bloc detachments had typical Commie junk (Lada, Moskovitch, Gaz vans, lots of IFA trucks and the occasional Volvo for the Soviet higher-ups).
Angola is about the size of Texas and California combined. Road trips were long and often required short off road detours. This was an observer/advisor mission rather than a combat mission. I was always grateful we didn’t get stuck with having to use military vehicles for this assignment. Our Suburban was far better suited to the driving environment than anything the military detachments from other countries had to use.
It wouldn’t surprise me to find someone still driving our Suburban even today. Cars don’t rust outside the jungle areas due to the dry climate. At one time, our Suburban may have been the only one in the country. I certainly never saw another. Makes it a true classic IMO.
Despite their being so common, I’d like to think of them as collectible.
They were, and in many ways remain, the best GM has to offer in the mass market. And as pre-owned vehicles, a Suburban can often be had for less than a Tahoe, which frankly, I would place in a similar collectible status.
Those 15 inch wheels looked ridiculous even then. I remember the auto rags even saying so in their reviews of big trucks then.
That was only on the half-ton models. The 3/4-ton used 16″ wheels.
“Why GM didn’t invest in a new Suburban is a bit hard to say, except maybe it was purely a matter of prioritizing their development/tooling investment dollars, given how the mid-late 80s were a time of many new car introductions at GM, and many/most had bad starts, like the GM-10 fiasco”
Interesting question. I suppose even if Suburban sales were increasing incrementally after any sense of brawn was lost in GM’s big cars after 1979, GM’s certainly had its hands full with trying to maintain volume and market share with five car brands running four or five platforms each. The idea of the automotive pecking order of today with pick-ups and truck derived SUV’s standing in for the full-size sedans and wagons of the past, with various SUV’s and CUV’s taking over for smaller vehicles, probably seemed impossible in 1983.
It seems like the real wake-up call to the future was the relatively failed investment in the final 1991-1996 B body cars, whose Arlington, TX plant rather famously gave way to Tahoe production, due both to the change in the sales mix and pressure from CAFE regs.
I have seen a one or two of these Suburbans around Tualatin with Antique Vehicle Plates, but antique Suburbans are not too common around here. Some are still used as work horses.
The GM pickups of this generation certainly are, so I would say yes, these are as well. A limited market, but they have heir fans. I consider 4X4, 6.2L diesel, and the ’87-’91 TBI equipped versions to be the most desirable. The 3/4 ton models have much better towing capacity but give up little in ride, not to mention look better on 16″ or 16.5″ wheels.
I had one of these, a 1984 GMC 2500 with the 6.2. 23 mpg on trips back in the days of the 65 mph speed limit. Still, at today’s prices we’re talking $100+ to fill it’s 40 gallon tank, no matter how far it got you which was usually over 800 miles. Easily fixed, everything I ever needed to work on was nicely accessible to my limited wrenching skills. I even grew proficient with navigating it’s bulk once I grew used to the dimensions. I remember it having power everything and a rear window which went up and down. And I could not go faster than 73 because the 130 horsepower diesel was a stone.
Collectible in the standard sense of the word? No.
The pictured Suburban is anywhere from an 85 to 88 model based on the grill design…The grill and head light layout was changed again on the 89 Suburban and lasted through the final model year 1991 for this bodystyle.
That body color center grille divider looked sharp, especially on a red truck. And, yes, I’d say these are moderately collectable with the potential for more interest in the future. It’d be interesting to see how much DENWERKS over at Bring a Trailer could get for one considering what he sold for over $17,000: http://bringatrailer.com/listing/1994-ford-f150/
The stacked 165 × 100mm rectangular headlamps came as standard or optional equipment in ’81-’88. I’ll leave it to others (such as Dave just above me here) to further pare down this year range by the likes of grille and badging details.
In my varied and (usually) interesting fleet of wheels I’ve owned over the years, I have been the owner of 3 Suburbans and 1 Grand Wagoneer. These served as my scouting/camping haulers as I had a scout troop during this time period. The Wagoneer was by far the nicer/more pleasant transport but the ‘burbs were the ultimate utility vehicles and unlike the GW, they were dead reliable and relatively cheap when something did break. This generation of GM truck/blazer/suburban was incredibly susceptible to rust here in the western PA and the first one I bought was already a ‘bodyman’s special’ when I got it-a ’79 in ’91. An awful LOT of tin tape and Bondo made it serviceable for what I needed. I had to bid it goodbye when the body had finally separated almost completely from the frame mounts but it was like shooting ‘ol Yeller because that thing was mechanically outstanding. The next was an ’88 Diesel which I loved for its relative economy-17 whole MPG!! It had replaced the Wagoneer which had just about bled me dry, and I replaced that on with a ’95 in ’03 which I drove for several years until stepping down as a scoutmaster and allowing myself a smaller set of SUV’s through the years. I have no doubt these will become collectible as they certainly carved a space out in MY heart as a vehicle I’d have again in a second were I to require that level of utility again.
I find the comments about the small wheels very telling.
15″ rims with a fat off road tire (32-35″) are generally much more satisfying to drive than a big rim rim with less sidewall. Also generally cheaper, and certainly, when these were newish, more common to find.
The normal thing was some small road tires and a set of mudders in the garage. Back then used rims cost about 10$ each. Get a bunch and put tires for every occasion on em.
I have yet to find a real world situation where narrow sidewalls are better. It is all marketing as far as I am concerned.
“Why GM didn’t invest in a new Suburban is a bit hard to say, except maybe it was purely a matter of prioritizing their development/tooling investment dollars, given how the mid-late 80s were a time of many new car introductions at GM, and many/most had bad starts, like the GM-10 fiasco” That same question could be asked about GM’s seeming reluctance to market extended cab pickups LONG after Dodge and Ford offered them.
The ’88-’92 MY transition to the GMT400 series was I think a tooling and logistics issue, not intention not to update the Suburban. Crew cab pickups were also delayed.
A similar transition occurred with the next generation. “Silverado/Sierra” (not trim level, but model name) 1500 series pickups debut for 1999, Suburban/Tahoe/Yukon for 2000, followed by the HD pickups in 2001. I have a 2000 K2500 (old GMT 400 style). Two years instead of four, but still a phased introduction.
One of my co-workers still uses his as his semi-daily driver- gas guzzling 454 and all.
Back in the day we used these to pull race cars. Plumbers bought them. Work trucks was all and I read that Chevy was ready to pull the plug on them when someone thought to market to WOMEN…. to haul the kids. And here we are today. These are luxury vehicles, not utility vehicles. I bet you can buy a work version now. With no carpet and the doubledoors on the back.
Just my thought.