(Every so often a comment gets turned into a post. This one was left by andrew911 at the 1976 LeSabre V6 article)
I am familiar with the 1976 V6 LeSabre…because our family had TWO of them!! I was young at the time, but my grandfather purchased one for himself and one for my father from Justus Buick in New Jersey.
My grandfather’s was the nicer of the two as it had the options of: A/C, AM/FM and the speed warning indicator (you set a max speed on the dash and if you exceed the speed it makes a buzzing noise). My dad’s was more basic, with no A/C and an AM only radio and with dog-dish hubcaps. Both cars had manual windows and door locks.
As a child my dad drove the car into the ground, probably got over 100K miles out of it and about 6-7 years of use before it died. My grandfather traded his in on a 1982 regal, so he probably had about 70-80K on his and it was still running.
Some memories are:
My father would come home from work and his car would keep stumbling after he turned it off (dieseling). I remember him getting out of the car tired from working all day and having a long driving commute (with no A/C, AM radio, manual windows and a very slow car mind you) walk a few steps towards the house, his shoulders would slouch and he’s turn around to get back into the car to push the gas pedal to get the car to finally stop running.
My father has always been a fairly slow driver, and driving a V6 full sized Buick in the 1970’s meant he was in his element. What I remember is going 56 MPH down the garden state parkway to get to the shore area with the windows down for the weekend/vacation, listening to 1050 WHN (AM radio- country/rock crossover that was popular in the 70’s-80’s), and if it was raining out hearing the static each time the windshield wipers passed over the embedded windshield antenna. I’m not into country music, but at least with the “crossover” they played the Eagles, and some other decent music (Kenny Rogers, Johnny Cash…70’s Elvis!)
Anyway, we’d be driving on the highway at 56-57 mph the whole way and even in those dark energy crisis/jimmy carter/55 mph national speed limit days, cars were going past us at probably 65 mph (nowadays if traffic isn’t bad people are all going 80-90 on that same highway)- but going that slow highway speed and with traffic constantly passing, and just wanting to get to the shore/beach frustrated me as a child. Hills were also a challenge to get moving at a decent speed in that car. As a result I love fast cars and have had/and have several. My need/desire to speed/drive briskly is from the pent up frustration of riding in that V6 all those years!!
It wasn’t until years later that I learned my grandfather purchased the car as a gift for him- he probably worked “a deal” with the Buick dealer to purchase 2 of these at once, meanwhile the salesmen were probably having a laugh that they were able to unload two of these things and get them off the lot!!
Now some info from what I have seen/heard:
People are correct that the 1976 Buick brochure doesn’t mention the availability of a V6 in the LeSabre- I believe it is likely correct that Buick decided to add it for that model year after the brochures were already printed up. Clearly it was offered during the 1976 model year as we had two in my family!
The actual power of the 3.8 in 1976 I believe was 105 net HP (vs 110 of the later 3.8), with 185 lb/ft of torque. Awful for a car of this size/weight!
They improved the 3.8 the following year, making the motor an “even-firing” V6, which period road tests of Buicks with this motor noted as being significantly improved (and as we know, the 3.8 went on to be one of GM’s finest motors several years later, like the ’87 Park Ave my grandfather bought after his ’82 regal- a very smooth motor with ample torque for the time and excellent highway mileage to boot). You can almost think of the ’76 application of this motor in cars like the LeSabre as being the real world beta testing of what was a crappy motor to make it a little better for ’77 and continue refining it in subsequent years, in the face of the fuel economy and emissions challenges of the period.
I remember reading an interview with a GM engineer who was talking about the 3.8. He said the focus of their buyers was to have easy power to get through an intersection, which even in the ’76 guise the 3.8 likely had as peak torque is probably around 2,000 rpm. It’s what happens after that where there is an issue (i.e. when you are trying to accelerate with traffic after 15 mph ? )
Anyway, if anyone has a survivor V6 Buick LeSabre I’d love the see pictures of it! A rare car (but rare for a reason- ha!!)
Dieseling! My mother’s ’86 Plymouth Horizon did that – I liked to say it ran better after you shut it off than before. That wasn’t entirely accurate; a 2.2 Omnirizon was quick for a non-hot-hatch small car and one of the few to be able to get out of its’ own way with an automatic. And my mom was the opposite of your dad, she made use of the extra cubes…
Oh yes, a curse of the 70s. A 2.5L Iron Duke Sunbird in our family would stumble and clatter, dieseling for about 5 seconds, and then as a last gasp, would kick into running BACKWARD for 3-4 seconds before finally stopping. You could watch the belts and pulleys on the engine and see it running reverse! I never could figure out how that was even possible.
Dieseling was usually the result of a slightly too high idle speed. Many people didn’t realize that leaving the car in drive while turning the key off would solve this problem.
Ah, so that’s the term used in Normal English! Dieseling. Great word. My mother’s 1980 Corolla used to do it very often back in the day.
My ’82 Malibu with the Chevy 3.8 (229) V6 did it too. If you took the air cleaner off, you could see that as it finally quit stumbling it would shoot a squirt of gas out the top of the carb.
“Life in the slow lane
Surely make you lose your mind
Life in the slow lane
Not a thing none of the time”
Actually, the “even-firing” V6 was introduced for 1978. What happened to the 3.8-liter over the next few decades must make it one of the most-improved motors of all time.
Good grief! I remember driving a 77 LeSabre with the V6 and recall it as one of the slowest things I had piloted up to that time, which was around 1978. I can only imagine how much worse one of those really big 76 models was.
Our 1976 Oldsmobile Delta 88 Royale hardtop sedan had the 350 V-8, and it was no powerhouse. I can only imagine what driving this car was like!
I had to chuckle at the description of the windshield wipers interfering with the radio because of the “windshield” antenna GM used in the 1970s. I remember several GM cars from that era doing the same thing.
Our Oldsmobile had the optional power antenna, but radio’s reception was still lousy, which seemed to be a common problem with the GM radios during the 1970s. Ford radios were much better, as I recall.
Your experience mirrors mine on several counts. My mother’s 74 Luxury LeMans with its 2bbl 350 was a dog. And the radio got terrible reception. I remember being amazed at the fabulous reception on the AM radio on my grandma’s 69 Catalina (with its mast antenna) by comparison when I was fiddling with it in the driveway one day. Both Ford and Chrysler cars seemed to have much better radios in the 70s.
my 77 Chevelle has the 305 and while no powerhouse, can out run a slant six powered 74 Dart Swinger.
That still makes it the slowest car on the road most days, but I can still leave most drivers at the light without much effort or much throttle.
And yes the 1980s Delco still does the static from the wipers running across the glass. reception is fairly decent on AM, but FM isn’t all that great. the ETR ones are way better. the AM only radio my car came with from the factory can pull in stations from all over the country if the conditions are right… just not much worth listening to on AM these days.
AM radio is dead to me now. I used to love it for the ability to tune in a distant station and have it stay with me longer than FM ever would. No more.
I recall a test of a 1977 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme sedan in Consumer Reports with either the 231 V-6 or 260 V-8. The magazine recorded a 0-60 mph time of over 20 seconds.
Our neighbors had a light metallic blue 1976 LeSabre sedan with this V-6. They bought it brand-new. I still remember the “clattering” noises that engine made as they drove by our house.
It was a 260 V8. It was slow, but not 20 seconds! It was 18.x seconds.
That issue featured a 77 Caprice 305, which was best car CR had tested up to that point. The Caprice was the quickest, 12-13 seconds, the Dodge Monaco 318 was next quickest, followed by a Ford LTD II or Mercury Cougar 302
The GM cars were more economical, and better driving, and ranked 1 and 2 (despite slow poke 260)
The article reminded me of my childhood…Long Island, similar speeds, we had a Pontiac Ventura (Nova) with the 260 V8 and a Ford Fairmont 4 cyl. My dad wasn’t slow or fast–he did 50-65 on the Long Island Expwy or Parkways. If the traffic was good, people would be doing 55-65, half the cars would pass us.
The most I did with either of those cars was 83-85 in the early-mid 80s, still on LI.
Their 0-60 times were on the slow side for sure. Most of the magazines at the time had a 260 powered A-body in the 15-16 second range. Perhaps they had 2 drivers aboard or the cars were green with low mileage. If anything a 1976 Buick LeSabre with the 105 HP 231 V6 must have been a 20 second plus car.
I’m guessing that the Consumer Reports testers were less likely to use “tricks” to achieve faster acceleration times than testers at the enthusiast magazines. Plus, Consumer Reports bought its test cars directly from a dealer, so the magazine wasn’t getting specially tweaked cars from a manufacturer’s fleet.
Their results most resembled those achieved by typical drivers in the real world.
I’m sure the V-6 tested well on the EPA cycle, but I can almost be certain that in the real world there would be no mileage difference between it and a V-8 due to the gas pedal being smashed to the floor continuously.
I may have mentioned this here before, but a family we went to church with when I was a kid had one of these. It was a four door hardtop (IIRC) and I can remember thinking to myself at the time, how can a V6 move that tank of a car?
To make matters worse, the family that drove this car was obese. Not just fat, but all six of them were morbidly obese. Mom and Dad had to be 300 lbs. apiece. Grandma wasn’t a whole lot lighter and the only reason why the three kids were under 200 lbs. was because the oldest boy (who I went to school with) was 13 at the time. I grew up in a small town on the Ohio/Pennsylvania border which was rather hilly; I’m sure that passersby could hear the V6 begging for relief when the whole family (parents, three kids and Grandma) were in the car together.
These cars were some of the first responses to the 1973 Fuel Embargo and it’s after-effects. They were (IMO) poorly thought out and in combination with ever-tightening emissions regulations and the fact that the domestics flat out refused to employ better technology (like fuel injection), we ended up with compromise-mobiles like this.
This has happened several times now over CAFE’s 40 year history and is currently happening now. The myriad cars we see today that employ 4-cylinder engines as “base” motors in large cars is more of the same kind of thinking that put a 110 HP V6 into a full sized GM B body sedan and expecting a good result out of it.
While we can debate the relative merits of different administration’s approaches to fuel economy and pollution targets, I do wish that the automakers would sell us the technology that we have at our disposal now.
4 bangers today get more HP then mid 70’s v8’s.
And FWIW, Camrys, Accords, etc with “tiny” 4 cylinders can go well over 200K miles. Not the ‘disposable economy’ motors of 70’s small cars.
I’m not commenting on the durability of the motors; given reasonable care, they will go quite far. I’ve had a number of four cylinder cars, a couple with turbos. With proper maintenance, they did great.
What I’m concerned with is drivability. Just like these mid-70’s compliance-mobiles, driving them in a normal mode can be frustrating. If you want to get anywhere, you need to floor it constantly, ruining any fuel savings that the car was supposed to deliver.
I drove a 4 cylinder Camry.. even with 5 people, the car had plenty of power.
I can only imagine how slow that would be. I had a 76 LeSabre with the base 350 and it was no speed demon.
The closest I came was an 70 Dodge polara with a slant six and it didn’t measure acceleration in seconds, it measured it in sundial!
Buick decided to add it for that model year after the brochures were already printed up
Yes, the v6 was a mid year intro, and Buick touted the “20 mpg highway” ratings.
My mom was fed up with our Caddy’s 8-12 mpg city and wanted one, after seeing them on the front row at local Buick dealer. But good thing my dad was ‘frugal’ and said, “we can buy gas with money spent on a new car”.
But, did get fed up with Caddy when gas went up again in ’79, got a used ’77 LeSabre with 350 2bbl, and 14-16 mpg average.
20 mpg back then was something people used to brag about. Most cars couldn’t come close. I don’t think these V-6 Buick’s could. A slant 6 Valiant would.
Only advantage to the V6 LeSabre was you got a 3.25 or so rear axle ratio instead of the V8’s 2.41!
I recently read a review on one of the enthusiast mags’ sites in which a car did 0-60 in 7.4 seconds – they said it ‘will require careful planning when passing on the freeway.’
I LOL’ed.
The even firing V6 came in 1978. I purchased a new Buick in 1977 and it had the odd-firing 231 CID V6. I just checked Consumer Guide for 1978 and they confirm my memory.
This 105 HP 1976 LeSabre and the 1981 85 HP Slant Six Chrysler Newport have to be some of the dumbest decisions by car makers of the time. Putting a small underpowered engine in a heavy full size car is futile and might look good in a simulation lab but in the real world is just asking for trouble with increased engine wear, poor mileage and of course poor performance. Another misfire was the 1977 Pontiac Phoenix with the then new 87 HP 2.5 Iron Duke.
As for the 231 V6 it was an engine that was far happier in the mid size cars like the A/G body. I drove numerous examples from 1979 to 1987 with the 2 BBL set up and they were at least adequate and safely kept up with traffic. 0-60 times were in the 12.5-13 second range when in proper tune. Slow today for sure but quicker than the 15-16 second times my 1979 Fairmont with the wheezy 200 six did or those 85-90 HP Slant six engines in the M-body cars of the early 1980’s. They had this way of easing there way up to 60 with but a light touch of the throttle and this was in doubt due to the 190 LBS FT of torque available starting at 1600 RPM’s.
As for a very accurate time table of changes to the Buick V6 when GM bought the engine design back from AMC here is a great source site.
http://www.gnttype.org/general/v6hist.html
Here are some 0-60 times from Consumer Reports (all auto unless otherwise noted)
77 Caprice, 305, ac, 12.4 seconds
77 Cutlass 4-dr, ac, 260 2bbl 110hp V8, 19 secs!
77 Nova 250 I6, 110 hp, 15.x seconds
77 Skylark 231 V6 105 hp, 16 secs
78 Malibu 200 V6, 16.x secs
78 Fairmont 200 I-6, 84 hp, 15.8 secs
78 Fairmont 140 (2.3 liter) 4, 88 hp, 4-spd, manual steering n brakes, 15.4 secs
So the base Fairmont was quicker than the other compacts and markedly more fuel efficient
But the Caprice was only slightly thirstier than the 6 cylinder compacts, but much quicker, much roomier, and better built
I can only imagine how awful this must be. Car deserves deadly sin status. I remember driving a 80 Delta 88 v 6 and a early 80s park Ave with the big 6 and a 4100 Cadillac. All were awful. Slow and thirsty. I can only imagine how slow and thirsty that buicck must have been especially with AC on.
Ah, yes – the engines that sounded like diesels even before you turned them off!
I’ll bet the salesman had a laugh unloading not only two rough, rattly, gutless barges, but also one of them with NO AC!
And modern fuel-injected fours, with up to 200 or more hp, aren’t the penalty-boxes they used to be. Sure, if you’re a lead-foot, I wouldn’t expect great gas mileage. But even my ’98 Altima, with ‘only’ 150 hp, doesn’t need lead-footing most of the time. It’s also the first car I’ve owned that’s made it over 200K – still running strong.
Plus, routine maintenance and repair is much easier and cheaper than most V6s.
Happy Motoring, Mark
I just now realized this was separated in it’s own topic last year! I commented on the original topic thread (and some of the comments are also from an unrelated thread where this motor came up) just now realized this was created, so I wanted to re-post some other information just so this is all in one spot. Sorry for the length (or if you saw any of my babble on one of the other topic threads)- it’s a couple of posts worth, but worth reading for anyone else who was scarred by this car in their youth or as an adult driver :).
I found an old picture of the car taken on Easter in the 70’s. I confirmed a small detail I thought I remembered: My father’s car had hubcaps that were more plain and had the Buick symbol in black vs. my Grandfather’s car that had hubcaps with the Buick symbol in tri-color. My father’s V6 LeSabre really was a stipped down low-buck version of the car…how much extra could it possibly be to have the full Red White and Blue symbol on the hubcaps?
His car was probably on the lot advertised at the lowest price- you see the advertised price, go in to take a look and the salesmen takes you for a test drive in a 350 or 455 LeSabre with A/C and AM/FM, then when you ask about the car you saw advertised you’re sweating on the test drive on a hot day with no acceleration, static-ey AM-only radio and hubcaps with black Buick symbols- ha!
I do remember my dad saying when they got the car since it was a gift from my Grandfather my dad didn’t want anything on the car to keep the cost down…but my dad isn’t a car guy so I could see him buying the car for a low price on his own too. The other car we had was a ’72 Opel 1900 wagon automatic, which ironically was also sold through Buick dealers. Also a slow car, but I digress… We got the LeSabre when my sister was born- fourth kid and my Grandparents probably wanted to help out as they were great people.
Given the speeds my dad drove on the highway (i.e. he didn’t push it), he may have actually received whatever highway mileage was rated on the window sticker! The only (and I mean only) positive thing about the V6 in the high inflation 70’s was the fuel mileage, which if you drove 55 mph was probably untouchable by any similar sized car with a V8 that year. Just last week, I asked by father if he remembered what sort of mileage he’d get commuting on the highway back then, and he laughed and said he never bothered to figure that out (which is the response I expected- as I said he’s not a car guy and probably never noticed how slow his car was!)
KevinB’s post above is spot on regarding the real world fuel economy of this vs the V8- If I had a license back in the 70’s and were driving one I would not be getting the relatively good highway fuel economy advertised since I’d be going 70+ on the highway back then. Because that motor would be working so hard, it would likely get worse highway fuel mileage at that speed than the 350 or even 455 Lesabres, which wouldn’t have to work as hard to go that speed…
I’m not sure if it’s accurate, but I did a quick search and came up with this picture from a book about Buicks- says 16 city/21 highway for the coupe (sedan likely about the same)… At 70+ MPH on the highway (and using most of the acceleration available to get to that speed relatively quickly), my guess is real world fuel mileage would probably be closer to the low teens!
By the way, the comments on the dieseling, radio, etc are very funny- especially the one about the motor starting to run in reverse!!!