In last Tuesday’s essay, I had referenced having played the piano as an activity that, while I wasn’t necessarily intuitive at it, I had the skill of mastery that allowed me to excel and perform with a decent amount of skill. I’ve long been fascinated by the idea of wondering what human traits, thoughts, and behavior are innate to us as individuals, and which are learned. The whole “nature vs. nurture” thing. It’s not my intent to tackle those overall ideas in depth here, but since the model name of this big Buick includes “master” in it, I felt this deserved further exploration within the context of this car.
“Roadmaster”… master of the road. “Master” is a pretty lofty title or description to bestow upon someone or something. Among many other definitions, Merriam-Webster includes the following: “one that conquers”, and “one having control”. In my own mind, I think of anything called a master as being superior in some way. Within this context, I decided to ponder the ways in which this final, rear-drive, B-Body Buick is a master or demonstrates mastery of one thing or another.
It is a master of bigness. Almost 216 inches (215.8″) stretch from front to rear in the largest of Buick sedans offered for sale that year, ten and a half inches longer than the flossier Park Avenue Ultra. Add that to a width of 78.1″ (without mirrors) and a curb weight just shy of 4,100 pounds, and we’re looking at a machine capable of body-slamming anything in its path in an unfortunate incident. Who said big equals unattractive? Certainly not me. I’m not sure how I feel about the term “body positive”, as I think beauty should simply be called beauty, in whatever size it’s packaged.
The ’92 Roadmaster is a master of thirst. With EPA estimates of 15 mpg city / 23 mpg highway, and 18 mpg combined, it’s not subtle at the gas pump, either. Motivation comes from a 5.7 liter V8 with 180 horsepower, with the Roadmaster having been its only recipient in Buick’s lineup that year. I suppose these figures weren’t terrible, considering the 15 /24 (18 combined) EPA ratings of the supercharged, 205-horsepower, 3.8 liter V6-powered flagship Park Avenue Ultra. I won’t even compare the Roadmaster’s fuel efficiency ratings with other cars in its class because that would be like comparing which movie theater popcorn butter is better for your arteries. There would be no point in such an exercise. A car like this needs torque, and this one has 300 lb-ft of it, and is capable of towing up to 5,000 pounds.
It’s a master of looking formal, and also like a Buick. A strong family resemblance is obvious with just one glance at it from any angle. In fact, I’ll posit that this ’92 Roadmaster looked to be more of an accurate, early-’90s interpretation of a mid-’70s LeSabre than was the ’92 LeSabre. I know this car was based on the same B-body architecture introduced with the downsized ’77 LeSabre, but I’m talking more about the stylistic details on this Roadie, including the full-width taillamps. I’ve never been a fan of the fender skirt look, but it somehow works on this black example, in conjunction with its wire wheel covers and slabs of chrome trim. Maybe I’m partial because I grew up in Flint (former home of Buick world headquarters, for almost a century), but the overall look of this car works well to my eyes.
“ROADMASTER TOWING CAPACITY: 5,000 POUNDS.” In all-caps.
The Roadmaster wasn’t a master of massive popularity, mustering up a decent-but-unremarkable 85,300 sales in ’92, the first year for the reborn sedan (the wagon had arrived for ’91), of which 30,400 were base models like this one. It did outsell the Park Avenue, which moved 69,800 units that year. It should be noted that the ’92 Roadmaster undercut the price of the smaller Park Avenue by about $3,400 / 13.5% ($21,900 vs. $25,300). Between 1991 and ’96, Roadmaster sales totaled almost 201,000 units, which was only a fraction of the related Chevy Impala’s number, which sold 202,000 sedans in ’91, alone. (Almost 689,300 full-sized Chevys would be sold between ’91 and ’96 over the same period.) Over the same six model years, 408,300 Park Avenues were sold (over twice as many as the Roadmaster), which indicates a clear preferences Buick Buyers had for the more modern, front-drive luxury sedan.
If the reborn Roadmaster had been allowed another generation, would it have honed its skills at which it was deficient and shown some mastery of them? Would a ’97 Roadmaster have become more European in flavor (like the Oldsmobile Aurora), or gone in a more Japanese, Lexus-like direction? Buick had flirted with a more “international” style of car in the ’80s with their various T-Type models, but the last T-Type Electra had been a ’90, with just under 500 examples finding buyers. No, this Roadmaster had mastered the art of big-time, Buick traditionalism in its brief, shining return to the market for ’91 after a thirty-three year absence. For that, we must give it credit.
Downtown, The Loop, Chicago, Illinois.
Thursday, June 22, 2023.
The 1992 Buick Roadmaster brochure pages were courtesy of www.oldcarbrochures.org.
Well, let’s see. I think I’ll tackle those epa figures.
My sister bought a brand new Road Blaster wagon in 1991 at which time the dealer told her only the 305 Chevy engine was available. It did really well on the road turning in 27 tankful over tankful.
However we had three Park avenues, one 1980, a 1993 Ultra and a 95 base.
The 80 was doing its best at 16-17 on the highway (Buick 350/4). The Ultra never dropped below 29 highway and the base was 31 and better always. Now, I don’t drive a car like it’s on fire, but I do like to do a little over the speed limit. I was truly amazed at the 3.8 engine which we also had in three Lesabres.
As far as the Master part, naw. I’d gladly have a Park Avenue any day of the week!!!
I’m enjoying reading everyone’s nicknames for the Roadmaster in the comments. “Roadblaster” never occured to me before, but I like it. The fuel economy figures your sister observed with her ’91 Roadmaster were much better than I would have expected.
My grandparents had a 1992 Buick Roadmaster. It was smooth, it was comfortable, it was quiet, it was awful.
If memory serves, it consumed five torque converters, a couple of transmissions, and received a new engine along the way. Once it was all sorted out, it was a great car, the only car they ever had to exceed 100,000 miles during their ownership.
While their experience causes me to cringe a bit whenever I see one of these, there is no denying these Roadmasters had presence.
“Smooth, comfortable, quiet, awful…” That made me chuckle. I’m glad your grandparents’ example finally got itself together, but I am sorry they had to go through all of that.
Too bad they dropped the 119″ wheelbase the last RWD Electra had, or didn’t use Cadillac’s 121.5″. The narrow, vertical back door opening, shared with the wagon, looks off to me, and it’s accentuated by the extra-low beltline, which stood out at the time, not just against the predominant high beltline cars since.
I hadn’t especially noticed the low beltline when I had taken these pictures. Since you (and other readers) have pointed it out, though, it seems more pronounced.
Most of the cars I remember from when I was paying attention to new cars had a lower beltline, so that looks seems “normal” and baseline to me. It’s newer cars with their high beltlines and relatively narrow window openings that seem more “off” to me.
Excellent article Joe!
I for one would welcome the longer article on what functional traits, thoughts and behaviors are innate versus learned. It’s something that I constantly think about when considering many of the topics that I wind up writing about here on CC. What makes someone “good” (or even masterful) at a task like driving, repairing vehicles, understanding how machines work, or dealing with the aesthetics of cars and other objects? Fascinating stuff…to me.
There are so many points to pick up on in this article (so I’ll just catch a few). The “body positive” analogy re. the Roadmaster is perfect IMO. It very accurately describes my response to these cars. I admire them in terms of how they carry themselves. I think that they have a certain undeniable (to me) level of attractiveness. But would I want one? Well, no. Roadmaster wagons of this vintage always catch my eye. I always read the ads for them that come up rather frequently. (“Corvette engine”? Hummmmmmmmmmm) But somewhere around the end of the ad, after pouring over the photos, good sense takes over and it’s “Naaaaaaah.” It’s just…too much.
I also like the connecting of this design to the mid-70s LeSabre. I can see that now that you point it out. Having always had a soft spot for those big Buicks, I guess that is one reason why I’m attracted to these Roadmasters. Kind of.
Lastly, comparing movie theater popcorn butter? Perfect. So many life choices boil down to something like that. 🙂
The black Roadmaster in this article is well-photographed in the Loop. I personally feel that this is the perfect environment for something like this. Although probably not many of us would be so masterful in terms of parallel parking it.
Thank you so much, Jeff! Believe it or not, I do generally try to limit the number of metaphors I use in one essay.
Earlier this year, I was asked by a friend about at what point my interest in cars began. I honestly didn’t know what to tell her (since early childhood, I’d guess), which then made me think about if growing up in Flint, the Vehicle City, influenced this.
I’d say it was probably a little bit nature and a little bit nurture that contributed to my interest in cars
I was always put off by the absurdly enormous and deep dashboard on the Road Master and it’s stablemates and the annoying reflection it produced in the windshield. The Caprice LTZ was Motor Trend’s Car of the Year upon its introduction.
Practical considerations with respect to it’s steeply raked windshield, same as with the Lumina APV and other GM minivans with that same feature. I’ve never driven a car with that kind of steeply sloped windshield, so I don’t know how that would be with the glare, etc.
Another very nice find. And excellent, very detailed background info. Thank you Joseph! At the time, I saw no harm in GM serving a very specific niche market, that was never going to buy a BMW. I didn’t mind the looks of these, or the wagon. I saw them as fun, last salutes to the ’60s and ’70s era. They would have made great vacation rental cars. Or luxury taxis. Neither was especially common here in Central Canada. It was always a neat treat, to spot them. Thank you!
BTW, just love the beauty of your Chicago architecture backgrounds. The yellow cast iron elevated railway in your first pic, adds so much to the car, and scene. Great work!
Thanks so much, Daniel. And it is always kind of exciting to be able to photograph a vehicle with some Chicago-specific things in he background, like the Loop tracks in background. Reading your comment, I just remembered that the wagons and sedans had slightly different styling!
Fuselage styling just doesn’t work on full-sized cars – It didn’t work for Chrysler in the 70s, and it doesn’t work here. The curved flanks just serve to accentuate how big and bloated the car is.
I found the curved sides contributed to that genuine vintage look, these Buicks were going for. More authenticity. As opposed to a typical cookie-cutter ’80s-’90s GM car looking like a Saturn, trying to look like a traditional domestic luxury car. Like their Olds Ninety-Eight.
As with the fuselage Mopars, the wagon was the body style that wore it best.
GM Design provided a direct A/B comparison with the Geo Metro/gen 2 Suzuki Swift that applied the design cues to a car that stood out for its’ smallness rather than its’ bigness, which both constrained the curvature of its’ flanks in the name of space utilization and let its’ remaining roundness be perceived as baby-fat cuteness rather than bloat.
https://i0.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/IMG_6604.jpg?ssl=1
I think the success of the fuselage look on a large car can depend on execution. I’ve seen good and bad examples, but I think the Roadmaster wore it reasonably well. I also think some of its straight lines (versus all the curves on the Chevy) provided some good juxtaposition to balance out all that curvature.
Among my numerous vehicles over my now numerous years, was a 1993 ROADMASTER. Purchased from an estate (with Fingerhut plastic covers on rear seat) what could possibly be wrong 🤔? Test drove was great, smooth, comfortable, luxurious and HUGE. Soon discovered it got above 12 MPG overall. Then took it to trusted repair shop which I could not do before purchase. Was ready to spend more for several needed repairs when while cleaning the car, a lower door sill plate (rubber not metal) moved revealing rust at the base of center post. In two short weeks this great deal turned into a catastrophe. Sold it to a used car dealer with full disclosure for less than half what I had paid. Still love the look, size, and use of legendary ROADMASTER name. I still see two of these in town. One is white with a black hood! Basically a beater. But the other is a pristine black beauty identical to the photo. Ironically several years later, I bought a one owner 93 Cadillac Brougham which subsequently had many issues after about. a year after purchase. Worst was premature rust though of rear wheel wells. Sad commentary on the last of GMs full size luxury liners.
I’m sorry about your experience with your ’93 example. If only the plastic that covered and protected the seats from wear could have also kept it from rusting underneath.
Appreciate your response. If only…! But fortunately those problems led me forward to some other great vehicles!
That’s a shame your master turned out to be a lemon. If there is any way to swing it, buying a southwestern car is the way to go. I bought my 96 Roadmaster wagon out of Phoenix, and it had not only no body rust at all, but not even any chassis rust! Like pristine apart from dirt and some worn off paint. California is also a good source. I’ve bought a couple cars that came from there and they were also rust-free.
Just reread last part of the post. Personally happy ROADMASTER and Fleetwood Brougham were spared being turned into clones of European upscale vehicles. But these imports never had ANY appeal to this long term lover of The GREAT AMERICAN LAND YACHT!
Per usual, great prose Joseph. Playing an instrument competently was always outside my wheelhouse.
To be honest, I never “got” these cars. It seemed to me GM was casting their line backwards when they came out. At least there were stablemates that were at least a little more forward thinking.
Thank you, Dave. I also thought these seemed a bit retrograde when they arrived on the scene when I was in high school. I came to appreciate them more when thinking about their value proposition – more car for less money than the Park Avenue, with rear-drive V8 power.
Starting with the 1950 Rivera, various mid ’50s Sedans, and probably ending (from a personal perspective) the very “regal” 1962 Electra 225 six window four door hardtop, Buicks were very clear markers of the Sloan ladder.
> About equal to Cadillac but usually more visually conservative (’58 & ’59 notable exceptions where all GM marques were all radically designed).
> A bit nicer than Oldsmobiles; just a bit. Biggest difference were types of automatic transmissions and perceived moderation of personal flair.
> Less rough and tough than Pontiacs; smoother, quieter, and more “mature”. Few Buicks were involved in drag races; lots of Pontiacs were.
> Much nicer than Chevrolets, although the bow tie brand had their own, well perceived values and styles, and were important entry steps to the ladder.
All that went awry when GM started to meld models, motors, and badges.
Ford and Chrysler did the same stuff to their lines. I snarkily blame the MBAs who took over most big corporations starting maybe 50 years ago.
The Joseph Dennis byline is always a sign of a well thought out and interesting post.
Thank you so much. And I appreciate the comparisons between Buick and the other major GM brands from before the ’90s, along with some of the defining characteristics of those other brands. I see all of these.
I own the uptown cousin to the Roadmaster, the 94 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham, along with a 96 Park Ave Ultra for comparison. The Park Ave handles better, drinks much less gas (26 MPG on the highway at 80 vs 21), and has more front leg room due to the unibody/FWD layout. Both have that legendary GM air conditioning, and the Concert Sound II in the Buick sounds great even with the original speakers.
But man…does the Fleetwood have more hip room and shoulder room. And presence! I love them both but they are very different takes on domestic luxury. GM was trying to go after the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis buyer with these – but I will say that by this time the Panther platform was more refined, especially with the 4.6 under the hood.
They were the Masters of the Road, as long as that road was open and wide. Great musings as usual Joseph.
You are spot on with them taking aim at the CV and GMQ. The LAST Ford Country Squire was a 1991. After that only the big Buick wagon was available.
Thanks, Thomas. As you are an owner GM cars of the era of both the front- and rear-drive platforms, I appreciate your comparing the pluses and minuses of both. I wonder how many new-car shoppers cross-shopped the Park Avenue and Roadmaster. I imagine that quite a few did, since both platforms were right at the same dealership.
This Roadmaster video from Buick explains the thought process as to why they brought back a RWD Buick, despite having two full size FWD vehicles in the lineup that were doing OK.
Cliff notes version: at the time, the RWD large car market was 600k/yr….about as many cars sold by Buick as a whole. Buick wanted a piece of that as they believed that they could capture or recapture customers who hadn’t considered Buick since the 1985 RWD Lesabre.
I also wonder how many cross-shopped between the two – my one set of Greatest Generation grandparents purchased a 1992 Olds 88 Royale from a dealer that also sold Buicks (they owned a RWD Lesabre in the past), but they really loved the look of the Olds and the 3800 V6. They did go back to RWD, but only because the last of the traditional near luxury cars left in 2007 was a Mercury Grand Marquis.
And that I think is why the Roadmaster (and Fleetwood) didn’t do as well as GM hoped – by 92, the traditional buyers either moved on to Ford and were loyal to them or had come to like the C/H body offerings and appreciate the virtues (better packaging & fuel economy, easier to maneuver, etc).
FMC definitely had the edge on GM with more traditional American luxury looks. 89 Crown Victoria LX with formal roof, 89 Town Car Signature were both great cars. The Town Car actually got 24 mpg on open roads. Currently fortunate to have beautiful 2007 low mileage Town Car which will never get away from me. Last gasp of traditional American Luxury sedans.
My dad was a Buick lover and after driving to my folk’s house in a new rented Town Car, he asked me to take him to the Buick dealer to see the Roadmaster. No contest. The Buick looked and felt cheap – but was about the same price as the TC. The materials used for the interiors wasn’t as good. The knobs and switches felt like chromed plastic. And that gigantic dashboard that looked like a recycled plastic kiddie picnic table? Just sad.
There was a bit of a attention when GM released this body for the Roadmaster, 98, and the Big Chevy. I recall reading a GM designer claiming that the car was going to “eat Lincoln’s lunch”. But from the moment I saw these cars, they looked off.
The belt line was still that low featureless style done better with the Chevy Beretta – as a matter of fact GM reshaped that Beretta-ish C pillar with a kick up a few years later. The flat doors with no convex or concave shape. The rear door cut out that breaks into the rear wheel well is a cheap look. The whole car had a Packard/Nash shape from 1950, that is – it looks like a shell riding on a smaller car. I expected better surface details, but those were added on as chrome slats running the width and around the bumpers. The wheel wells didn’t look finished, just cut out and one dimensional. The tail lights were done better on the Olds, in my opinion – but the Buick’s should have been better since they were a large part of the rear design. They just looked plastic.
Vinyl roof? No – that wasn’t a modern look, worse, it was a bad 1970s look that looked like it was hiding something.
The interior was sad. The dashboard was too large and cheap looking.
Like my father, I really hoped for a Roadmaster that looked like what I imagine a Roadmaster ought to look like. Substantial. Not that.
Final note – Love that Roadmaster name. But, what the hell is a “98”? I grew up knowing it was the top of the line for Olds, but really – why did Olds keep that name? They couldn’t even decide how to spell it. “Ninety Eight”, “Ninety-Eight”, “98” – it has none of the romance the name Roadmaster carries. Olds had this problem for decades. They tried adding “Fiesta”, “Holiday”, “Royale”, “Regency” and other subnames for the 98 yet they kept that outdated name. Talk about being in a rut. As if the name “OLDS” wasn’t bad enough, naming their top line car in 1991 the “Ninety Eight” was unfair to the car.
I’ve never drawn a straight line between Buick and Lincoln, even in my own lifetime. I’ve always thought of Lincoln, at least up through a certain point including when this Roadmaster was new, as being a legit luxury make and Buick being more “near-luxury”. It’s interesting that the Roadmaster and Town Car you and your dad had looked at were about the same price.
I did actually like the Ninety-Eight name, but I suppose it appealed only to traditionalists who knew were aware of the model name from back in the day.
When one considers the practicality of this big car and the fuel economy, compare to all the many more people driving full size pickups daily, with no load in the bed, getting far worse mileage, with far less comfort, far less handling ability, etc. Now the car makes more sense.
This is a great observation that makes total sense to me. Lots of big pickups on the road.
Top – Roadmaster
Lower left – Ninety Eight
Lower right – Impala
The Olds does the best job with that dash and comes the closest to looking like it belongs in a luxury car. The Buick looks cheap. The Impala wasn’t obviously shooting for that market, and it shows. The enormous amount of monochromatic plastic is ghastly, even back in 1991.
1991 through 1996 Oldsmobile Ninety Eight used the same FWD C platform as the Buick Park Avenue. Oldsmobile did not get a companion model to the Roadmaster sedan, though its 91 through 92 Custom Cruiser did use the same body as the Roadmaster wagon.
I remember the auto magazines reporting rumors that Buick was considering importing one of the RWD Australian sedans to replace the Roadmaster. Caprice, Roadmaster, and Fleetwood were discontinued so GM could use the Arlington, TX plant to produce more profitable full-size SUV’s.
I coveted a Roadmaster back in the 90’s, especially after the 350 got port fuel injection and 260 hp, but could never justify replacing my very reliable 1989 LTD Crown Victoria. I could have only afforded a used Roadmaster.
Apples and oranges. The Ninety Eight is a FWD car on a completely different platform. Also, the 1991-93 Roadmaster dash (also used in the 1991-92 Olds Custom Cruiser wagon) is much better looking, with a nicely designed, highly visible full set of analog gauges.
You’ve made that claim before.
What is this car?
It is a rear drive 1994 Oldsmobile Ninety Eight.
The Ninety-Eight went FRONT wheel drive for 1985 and never looked back. The drivetrain is transversely mounted and continued that way through the final generation such as the ’94 you pictured.
So Jim – that was a FWD car?!
YES!!
The 98 was a 100% totally different car than the Roadmaster. The 98 was a FWD C-Body car, same basic car as the Buick Park Avenue and the FWD DeVille!
WOW!
I didn’t know that.
I’ve been wrong for over 32 years!
Good thing I’m not embarrassed about being ignorant, or I’d be embarrassed!
Thanks guys!
Ooooh… ouch. That Roadmaster dash is, well, not great. That of the Ninety-Eight looks the part.
I am biased (because I own one) but I’ve always liked the 94-96 Roadmaster dash (top picture). I generally like full-width dashes, especially on non-sporty cars, and Buick did a good job with the look. It has a nice flowing appearance, is clean and uncluttered, and has just the minimum amount of fake wood required in a domestic luxury car at the time. It fits the character and look of the car well.
The gauges aren’t as complete as the 91-93, though what is left is very legible (except the odometer). It does have a rather plasticky look, though most people would be surprised that most of the surfaces are actually padded vinyl, not hard plastic. The only hard plastic is the small trim around the gauges and radio/HVAC.
The 94-96 Caprice/Impala dash (lower right), which I also never minded the look of, is all hard plastic below the upper pad.
I think GM consciously moved from Buick and Chevy B-bodies mostly sharing dashes to having a traditional step-up in quality with the Buick. The Roadmaster also got unique door panels for 94-96.
She’s a beaut, but I like the look of these so much more without the vinyl roof. I detest vinyl roofs. I still see the occasional ‘whale’ Caprice, but can’t recall the last time I saw a Roadmaster in the wild.
It had certainly been a while since I had last seen a Roadmaster anywhere, with the exception of last July when I had seen one only a block or two east of this stretch of Monroe in The Loop. The vinyl roof isn’t my favorite feature, but to me, it doesn’t offend here. I agree that this one was a beautiful example!
I always really wanted to like these. First, is there a better name for a big Buick than “Roadmaster”? There is not. I also liked the concept – a big, traditional, rwd car. This was Buick’s (and GM’s) sandbox for decades, so this car seemed like a natural for them. But.
I was a bit mystified at how the bigger car (with the traditional top name for a big Buick) slotted under the smaller Park Avenue in price. It was like GM knew that this wasn’t really their flagship, but was more about throwing a bone to old traditionalists. Second, I was never really on board with the styling. The shape of these was just wrong – like a cross between a bathtub Nash and a wedgie Triumph TR-7 in the way every horizontal line other than the rocker panel swoops upward as it goes back. Oh well, it looked better than a Caprice.
The Roadmaster wagons were quite popular among older, affluent buyers in my area. I looked at one a guy I knew was selling – the problem was that he wanted too much for it. For a long time I thought I might find one, but I never did, then they all disappeared. Oh well.
Now I am starving for some movie theater popcorn!
It was like GM knew that this wasn’t really their flagship, but was more about throwing a bone to old traditionalists.
This was my impression of the Roadmaster as a high school student. The bigger car was less expensive, so it represented quantity over quality on some level, even if I sort of liked the Roadmaster for what it was.
like a cross between a bathtub Nash and a wedgie Triumph TR-7
This made me chuckle.
I feel like the Roadmaster wagon was always going to succeed based on its being the basic successor to the vaunted Estate Wagon.
As a lifelong buick fanatic, i have always liked these roadmasters even though i’ve never owned one.i have a lesabre and a century which i love, but i would love to have one of these( preferably in burgundy). Sadly, the only nice ones i see for sale are far too expensive or too far away. This one looks very well kept, but it really needs whitewalls to look perfect. Another great article, joseph!
Thank you, Mitchel. Coincidentally, the other Roadmaster I had seen on this stretch of Monroe (in July of 2022) was in the burgundy color you mentioned. I think that’s a great color for these.
My Dad bought his last car in 1996, a RoadMasher/RoadMonster, with the LT engine, a slightly detuned version of Corvette’s. He traded a ’91 Caprice with 305, that car was a real slug. (Mom had a POS Beretta, later smartly traded for a ’98 Lesabre). When I drove the new Roadmaster I was really impressed with it’s power and brakes, if not it’s handling. But it was a luxury cruiser after all, and fulfilled it’s mission well for the older folks that wanted that kind of car. I didn’t like the dash design and generally the materials, switches &c were not up to par, but the seats and ride were amazingly comfortable… I do miss cars like this.
The dash design has come up a lot, but after seeing the picture of one that Vanilla Dude posted above, I kind of get that the dashboard was a bit of a letdown. I do agree that this car fulfilled its mission for those who wanted a car like this.
Audi 5000 and then Ford Taurus, and then everybody thought they needed to make sedans with rotund body sides. This whale is uglier by any measure than the B/C bodies that preceded it.
The names Roadmaster and Super are really names appropriate only to the 40s and 50s. I can remember riding down the highway in my grandfather’s 1950 Buick Super- praying the rosary outloud. That became a less reasonable thing to do in a mid century modern
1960 Electra. Times change. Oldsmobile rightly did not change their model names in 1959 like Buick did. 88/98 were great alphanumeric names that anticipated the future by several decades.
Part of the appeal for some, of many ’70s domestic luxury barges, was ostentatious luxury. As it was also clearly tacky and faux, at the same time. I think this is what GM was attempting to convey, and reach with these.
They wanted to reach those remaining 1970s land yacht customers, that had nothing in the market, to satisfy their tastes for the overwrought. And these were styled as such. There are various 1970s cliches in its design, to almost be over-the-top. The aim was not necessarily, to adhere to tastefulness.
I think that it was a smart move for GM to offer these models. The Buick, Olds, Cadillac and Caprice were all platform mates, so tooling costs were amortized over a larger production number. Sure, they appealed to old fashioned sensibilities. But old people’s money is just as good as young people’s! The Buick was popular with regular consumers while the Chevy got the law enforcement and fleet numbers. I don’t think that it hurts to offer different types of cars at the same dealership. I remember a CC post where a hypothetical letter was directed at Cadillac, to shame them for continuing to produce the DTS.
Take the typical Chevy dealership of the past couple of decades. On the lower end you’ve got Cruzes’ Sparks, Barettas, Malibus, Camaros and Impalas and Caprices.You could buy GM’s number one halo car there, the Corvette. Or how about a pick up, Tahoe, or Suburban?
How did the presence of a Cruze hurt sales of a Suburban? Would a buyer of a Corvette have felt shame for having to purchase it at a Chevy dealer? I don’t think so.
The Roadmaster was out of touch with many buyers, and I think that GM wanted to project a more dynamic and modern theme, but they satisfied a lot of buyers that wanted to tow their trailer or boat with a car, and not a truck.
These big cars were the final shout out to the Greatest Generation and the large SUVs that replaced them display many of the same qualities
Interesting. Just glancing at the picture I thought it was a Roadmaster in Tokyo, at first! Something about the architectural detailing, coupled with the Honda…
I’ll always remember the Car and Driver test, with granny and her old-style handbag doing a smoky burnout in her new Roadmaster.
To my eyes the greenhouse always looked a bit tall in these. As Ralph said above, it’s a shame they didn’t use the longer wheelbase; that rear door window looks small, and accentuates the difference between the swoopy curvy lower body and the heaviness of the C-pillar. Maybe if the vinyl roof trim was level with the trunk line?
But what a great name for a car!
” I won’t even compare the Roadmaster’s fuel efficiency ratings with other cars in its class because that would be like comparing which movie theater popcorn butter is better for your arteries. ”
Good line!
Thanks for the well-written article.
There’s a nice one for sale at Premiere Auto Washington Pa…
Been driving ’95 and ’96 Roadmaster sedans since ’09 and can’t think of a better car for all around driving. The LT1 introduced in ’94 and the L460E trans are a great combination. The 80 additional horsepower makes for a car that has all the pick up you’ll ever need.
My ’96 Limited also has the FE2 heavy duty suspension and posi rear which gives it excellent handling. The only weak spots were the cheap plastic on the door panels and the rubber molding that eventually starts to come off. I also had a very low mileage ’93 Park Avenue and I’ll pass on the weak FWD soft suspension and low power V6 (It wasn’t the supercharged 3.8). That car is long gone.
The Roadmaster was a great car that doesn’t have all the useless tech and computers of today’s boring cookie cutters.
Wow! This article sure generated a lot of comments, I think that shows a lot of interest in traditional American luxury sedans and I completely understand. By the time these Buick Roadmasters were released, we had lived through the horrible 70s and 80s downsizing attempts. We all loved our big full-size American luxury cars and we were not ready to give them up as a result of the 73 oil crisis. That ruined everything! I remember when the 92 Roadmaster was released, it seemed like we had a full-size luxury sedan again, just like the good old days. I never owned one, I don’t really care for the cars GM produces, but that’s another story. But I did like the Roadmasters. I found the size and traditional American looks comforting, so did a lot of us apparently. Their old traditional looks seemed new at the time. Too bad they didn’t last.