Looking at this picture, I ask myself: why didn’t we have one of these? Back in the day, a Suburban would have been a lot more practical for hauling three kids, their friends, grandma, auntie, dogs, bikes and all the requisite gear to remote trailheads and campgrounds than our poor overloaded Dodge Caravan; no wonder it went through four transmissions.
If I’d bought one of these back then, this could still be our car at this trailhead instead of just posing with Stephanie and Little Man.
At the time I just wasn’t able to fall in love with the Suburban. It wasn’t for lack of exposure to them, considering that our hometown Chevy dealer in Los Gatos, CA stocked only Suburbans and Corvettes. Seriously. And he proudly advertised that fact: Biggest Corvette and Suburban dealer in Northern California! We lived there from 1987 to 1992, and Los Gatos and its neighboring tony hamlets were already some of the wealthiest enclaves in Silicon Valley. Suburbans were hot. I remember seeing a Boy Scout troop loading up for a camping trip at the temple parking lot down the street: a flotilla of Suburbans piloted by affluent-looking dads that would carry them up into the high Sierra. California—as usual—was a trendsetter in America’s love affair of big SUVs.
But it wasn’t the primary one this time.
The Suburban had already been well established as “The National Car of Texas”. Alternatively dubbed “The Texas Cadillac”, it suited Texans to a T. Here’s a great article at the Texas Monthly from 1986 that explains why Texans ditched their Cadillacs for Mercedes in the seventies, and then quickly ditched them for Suburbans, which were much better suited for them on many levels. The writer also fell under the spell of the Suburban, in his case trading a little Toyota wagon.
The reasons enumerated for the Suburban’s inexorable rise in Texas even includes xenophobia, given that the rapidly-expanding Japanese (and the Germans) had nothing remotely comparable. Of course that’s long changed, but the fact that Suburbans are built in Arlington, Texas is icing on the cake.
I had my first deep immersion in this phenomena on a business trip to Houston in 1986. My hotel was next door to a park with several soccer fields. When I got back from meetings in the late afternoon, there was a long line of Suburbans alongside the playing fields. At first I thought it might be a dealer using it to store excess inventory or such, but a closer look showed a gaggle of elaborately-coiffed Texas soccer moms wearing mom jeans chatting in clusters, waiting for the practice or game to finish.
During our Los Gatos years, a friend of ours we met at our kids’ school got a 4WD Suburban. They lived way up in the Santa Cruz Mountains, which somehow made it more acceptable in my eyes. But I did wonder how it handled on narrow Hwy 17, with its fast pace and relentless curves. It just seemed so huge, and they only had two kids…
Of course we were SUV trendsetters ourselves, just on a smaller scale, having bought a Jeep Cherokee back in the fall of 1984 when we were living in Santa Monica. And there was quite a number of Cherokees lined up at the West LA Montessori School; the West Side Cadillac of the times, along with Mercedes 300TD wagons. California’s Mercedes Mania was longer lived than Texas’.
We had two young kids at the time, and it managed to haul us and our gear on plenty of trips, including some memorable ones that required 4WD. I built a little plywood rear-facing seat (with seat belts) for when grandma or others joined the party. A flexible big rooftop luggage bag came in handy too.
After out third was born in 1992, we needed something bigger. Like a Suburban, perhaps, in retrospect. But no, we went for a Grand Caravan. And somehow we made it work, even when I took five teenage boys and my younger son camping for several weeks. How’s all this going to fit? Careful planning. The roof-top bag was for reserved for their personal gear, and we made it work, barely.
Here it is loaded to the gunnels again, with my brother and his three kids who were visiting.
A Suburban would have made it all so much easier. Except of course for the other 320-some days of the year, when the Caravan was used to shuttle kids and do errands. Who wants to park a Suburban in a crowded parking lot? And we kept the Cherokee, which the boys and I used for some great Oregon back roads adventures.
So why did the Suburban’s popularity begin to explode in the 1970s, as a family hauler? Suburbans and their ilk had been around for almost forever, but their common name “utility wagon” pretty much summed it up. The 1967-1972 generation clearly was more civilized, with its lower profile, longer wheelbase, and…three side doors. But outside of the work truck market, it was largely the province of hard core trailer towers and a certain kind of family that put a preference for utility over stylishness and comfort.
Those latter qualities were still the domain of the big station wagon in the ’60s, and in particular, the best selling Ford and its Country Squire. Chevrolet perpetually lagged in this key market segment.
It’s probably no coincidence that the all-new 1973 Suburban was the first of its kind to espouse such smooth and well-detailed styling for a truck. And now with available wood-grained sides. If Chevy couldn’t beat the Country Squire head on, how leap-frogging it?
Wait a minute; didn’t GM already try that with their “clamshell” wagons, that came out in 1971? They had an extended wheelbase, raised roof and three forward-facing rows of seats.
Huge they were. Maybe too much so?
Here’s a comparison of a few vital statistics of the 1976 Buick Estate Wagon and the 1976 Suburban.
Gee, maybe the Suburban wasn’t so big after all? Shoulda’, woulda’, coulda’
So we already know why the Suburban was so popular in Texas. They like to ride tall in the saddle as well as on big horses.
How about the rest of the country? I couldn’t find readily Suburban sales stats from the ’70s, but it’s probably pretty safe to say they were in the 30-40k range, roughly. The second energy crisis and the nasty recession of 1981 hit car sales hard, especially big ones. In 1982, 28k were sold. By 1989, it was 65k. The 100k mark was crested in 1998. And by 2001, it was 154k.
The Suburban’s appeal to affluent buyers had been spreading beyond Texas for some time, as noted vividly at that Chevy dealer in Los Gatos with rows and rows of them. It was becoming the new Cadillac, and a perfect companion to the BMW or Mercedes in the driveway. Suburban buyers’ demographics, along with the Jeep Grand Wagoneer, were at or near the top of the charts, in terms of education and income.
Undoubtedly someone will say that one (or even the main) drivers of the Suburban’s growth trajectory was CAFE. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations required manufacturers to slim down their big cars and wagons, and cut back on the really large engines as well as improve efficiency with overdrive automatics, fuel injection, and other means. Some will say the result was in wimpy little wagons that couldn’t get out of their way, hence folks snapped up big Suburbans.
It’s not nearly as simple as that. The downsized wagons that came along in 1977 were still mighty big, and longer than the Suburban; this ’82 Buick wagon measures a whopping 220.5″ from stem to stern. Hardly so small, and their substantially improved space utilization thanks to taller bodies, higher seats and shorter hoods resulted in as much or more usable interior space in almost every metric than their predecessors.
True, larger engine options were trimmed starting with 1980; 5.0 L V8s with 135- 160 hp or so became the norm. But then the speed limit was 55 and gas was decidedly more expensive, so buyers appreciated the substantially improved efficiency. Why else did GM’s 350 V8 diesel sell so well, until its infirmities made it a pariah? It was slow and noisy, but very economical. CAFE didn’t force it down their throats.
It’s not like the Suburban was any better endowed. The standard 305 V8 in 1982 was rated at 130hp, the optional 350 V8 at 165hp. The 305’s output later increased to 160hp. There was a big block 454 still available, but only on C20 2WD versions, specifically targeted at the big trailer towers. And the new 6.2 L diesel joined the party, with 130hp (148 in the C20) and 240 ft.lbs of torque, the same as the 305 V8.
Thanks to CC Contributor Vince, a Peterson 4WD magazine test of a 1985 148hp diesel C20 Suburban yielded a 0-60 of 15.7 seconds. A 160hp 305 Blazer, which weighed less, took 14.6 seconds. A 500lbs heavier Suburban would be lucky to equal that.
Fuel economy? The 305 Blazer managed 15 mpg in that test; the 6.2 diesel Suburban got a loft 18.3. Given the extra weight and bigger engine, a 350 Suburban likely got 12-14 mpg. I just remembered why I didn’t buy one.
The weakest of those 305 sedan/wagons, the 1980-1984 version, still ran the 0-60 in 12-13 seconds. In 1985, the 305’s performance increased, and 0-60 times were now in the quite brisk 10 second range, with 1/4 mile times in the mid 17s. That’s decidedly faster than a Suburban, and actually very competitive with the pre-energy crisis/CAFE big cars from the ’70s and even the typical pre-smog cars of the 1960s. And after 1989, the fuel injected versions were tested in the 9 second range. And the LT from 1994 on were 7 second cars.
So how come almost nobody was buying these? They were big, wide and fast; more so than the wagons of the glorious ’60s. Did someone say CAFE? And just how many big wagons did Chevy sell in 1994? Exactly 7,719. In 1996, it was…485. The big RWD wagon was dead, and GM retooled the Arlington plant where the last B-Bodies had been built to expand Suburban and Tahoe production.
This generation of Suburban (and Blazer/Jimmy) was built for nineteen model years, 1973 through 1991, in both Chevrolet and GMC versions. That must be some kind of record.
Why wasn’t there a Suburban (or Blazer) version of the new 1988 GMT-400 pickups? Did you have to ask? GM didn’t want to spend the money for its tooling, when the existing generation was still selling so well and had effectively zero competition. In 1992, the next generation finally appeared.
Let’s get back to the question at hand: just what was it that ignited American’s love affair with the Suburban? And killed the station wagon? A key factor is that that Americans’ love affair with full size wagons had already peaked back in 1969 (Ford sold 239k that year), and was on a steady decline ever since. By 1969, the main bulge of the baby boomers were past riding in their parents wagons. Family size was decreasing.
By 1978, a very good year for the industry and the last year for Ford’s really big cars, they sold all of 71k of their big wagons, still available with the husky 400V8. That’s down a whopping 70% from 1969. Was that because of CAFE? Of course not, as it hadn’t even taken effect. Big cars, and especially wagons, were already in terminal decline, as a younger generation came into their prime new car buying years and looked elsewhere.
And how many wagons did Ford sell in 1982, when Suburban sales were still at a paltry 28K? All of 22k. And except for a slight rise to 30k in 1984, Ford RWD wagon sales kept dropping, 15k in 1988, and all of 3,685 its final 1991 outing. By then, Ford’s Aerostar was selling in vastly larger volumes. The reality is that Suburban sales (and minivans and other SUVs) only really took off after traditional wagons were already essentially toast. And Suburban sales never came even close to the numbers that big wagons used to sell at. So what killed the traditional wagon?
Meanwhile, in 1988, for example, GM sold 140k of its space-efficient FWD A-Body wagons, and Ford moved 126k of its sleek beast-selling Taurus and Sable FWD wagons. There was still a healthy market for wagons, as long as they were modern, FWD, space-efficient, with good performance and economy.
Its image. If you haven’t already, go back and read that article I linked to. There’s a very good reason the Suburban was dubbed “The Texas Cadillac”; its prestige and image were comparable. A 1980s station wagon wasn’t. That’s by far the biggest single factor.
There were others too, the same things that killed the big American car in general, a subject that we covered in great detail here. The boomers were on the ascendancy, and their parents’ generation, who had ferried them in their Country Squires, were quickly moving past the peak child-rearing years.
And their kids just plain didn’t want to drive what they had grown up in. The ’60s and ’70s were a time of many vast social changes. Station wagons (and big cars in general) were just collateral damage, along with some others.
Watch me make a Ford Country Squire magically disappear! For ever!
They wanted something different; anything different. In the late ’60s, the VW Beetle and bus became symbols of that change. In the ’70s it was the full-sized van. Or maybe a Jeep or big Blazer. And when the boomers settled down to have kids, in an era of significantly higher gas prices and greater environmental awareness, the minivan was what they wanted. Chrysler had sold over a million of them by 1987, in its fourth year. They soon were selling at a much higher rate than big wagons ever sold. In 1999 alone, 1.4 million minivans were sold, and Chrysler had the biggest share of that.
Power? What power. These early minivans were slugs, with their wheezy fours. It wasn’t CAFE that created an avalanche of minivan buyers. It’s what a new generation of buyers wanted; well, some of them.
The SUV market had been growing steadily ever since WWII. It was still a niche in the ’50s, but it started to take off in the ’60s. The Big Three and International took notice, and the Scout, Bronco and Blazer joined the expanding family of Jeeps.
Jeep’s 1963 Wagoneer was a milestone in that category, as it blended uncompromising 4WD capability with a stylish, low-profile four door wagon body. The family-friendly SUV had arrived.
It wasn’t just the Wagoneer either. International’s Travelall had pioneered the four door utility wagon back in 1961, including a version with a smooth riding torsion bar IFS, as well as 4WD versions, like this ’65. This is the proto-Suburban, and Chevy soon followed suit with more doors, a better ride, lower and more civilized 4WD versions, and plenty of room, even in the three-row version.
Were these early big SUVs objectively better cars for most of the daily driving tasks than big wagons? Quite likely not. But tell that to a generation that had grown up with cramped and noisy VW Beetles and equally cramped Mustangs. What’s objectivity got to do with it, for the most part? The buyer knows what they want, and they wanted SUVs, and minivans.
And I get that now, better than ever. As I said at the top, if I could do it over, I’d probably have been better served by one of these, especially after moving to Oregon. Their utility for certain lifestyles is unassailable. Like this 33 year-old Suburban is demonstrating. For others, the utility is obviously a secondary factor.
This one is quite the veteran, showing the scars of an active lifestyle, probably all in the West, as this rust is clearly from rain water trapped in that cavity. My F100 has a similar issue in the cab roof just above both doors, where condensation pools that formed on the inside of the cab roof.
More patina, but harmless stuff.
The interior shows commensurate wear, but it’s hardly excessive. I wonder how many miles it has covered.
It’s not like it would be hard to keep its 350 running. Or running better, given the lack of smog inspections in our part of the world.
I’ve never thought of myself as a Suburban owner, but this picture makes it very possible to imagine. I get it now, thirty years later. And isn’t that what Curbsiding is all about? Falling in love with the cars and big SUVs that I never owned?
Briefly; and then climbing into my car of choice and driving off, until the next unrequited love affair.
Related CC reading:
The First Suburban – 1907
Curbside Classic: 1982 Chevrolet Suburban – Four Doors For The Win; Or Even Six
2000 Chevrolet Suburban – The First Hit of the New Millennium.
CAFE absolutely had a lot to do with why Americans ditched sedans and started buying SUVs. Look at what sedans looked like from the 1970s versus the 80s. Huge downsizing, and Americans hated them.
GM was maybe the worst when it came to overshooting the downsizing trend
The downsized GM B bodies for 1977 were smash hits, selling loads of cars. Americans didn’t hate them.
The downsized GM midsizers also sold just fine in 1978, and the X body FWDs were big hits until the word got out that they were unreliable.
I drove a Suburban in 1969 as a work vehicle and really liked it. The high driving position, good visibility and its driving manners just felt good all around.
I do think that Suburbans might have become popular sooner had GM introduced the rear door on the left side earlier. Was the lack of that door due to commonality with GM’s panel truck, which also died off, as compact vans rose?
I had an 87 suburban 3/4 ton 2 wd 454.I owned it 24 years,it was my daily driver.It had over 300,000 miles on it.This is how I described it. Than and now: It did everything….none of it well.,It was slow,ate fuel,rode like a dump truck, handled poorly,worst tow vehicle I ever owned ….Boy I wish I still had it back
.
When we had two kids in team sports and a track car to drag around I fell under the spell of the Suburban too – it’s America’s most long-lived vehicle, there’s room for everyone and everything, it can traverse most any terrain you point it at, and mine returns 23mpg highway, or 14mpg when pulling the racecar on an open trailer.
Our 2010 1500 LT has been in our fleet for 10 years now and has served intermittently as tent, tender and transportation as my daily when various other vehicles came and went or went down for service. My tools and spare parts, camping gear, volleyball kit and big box purchases haven’t gotten wet or stolen and I’ve not been stuck or even concerned in snow or mud – in fact have only engaged 4wd a small handful of times (on purpose).
The seats are too wide and flat for me to call great but they’re still tolerable over 12 hours towing. The steering is infuriatingly numb on-center despite specific, intentional alignment changes to try making it sharper and less wander-y. It has developed a small current draw that will flatten the battery in a week if I don’t drive, which the Internet suggests is a common ailment on these aging GMT900 trucks.
But aside from these few foibles, it has earned its place in our driveway and our hearts as a practical, reliable and enjoyable workhorse. My eyes keep wandering towards the current generation of gadget-laden, 1000HP Diesel behemoths as a lower-stress trailering experience, but perpetually grounding my wanderlust against economics the old girl remains safe in her role. I’m good with that.
A battery disconnect switch has been a life saver for my GMT800 Silverado.
For MY 1973-1976 (at the least), it seems pretty obvious that a C-10 Suburban was a more sensible choice than an Impala wagon.
Yet most folks don’t make sensible choices. In those years, there were still lots of folks who looked down their noses at pickup trucks, and the Suburban very obviously looked like a pickup truck with a long roof. Suburban moms (pun intended) wouldn’t have been caught dead driving something that looked like a pickup.
The earliest year for which I have pricing data is 1984, and the Caprice wagon had almost the same base price as a C-10 Suburban, but Suburbans were pretty stripped at base price. To get a Suburban up to the basic equipment levels of a Caprice probably would have made it $1000+ more expensive than a Caprice.
I knew families at the time, that may have been better served by a Surburban, than the Astro/Safari, or Aerostar they owned. However, they may have been hesitant due to the larger size, and already established contractor/construction-industry image of the Suburban. Larger SUV’s had not quite gone fully mainstream yet, in the minds of many, in the North American middle class.
I’ve always wanted a Suburban when the kids were little. Couldn’t afford it. I almost pulled the trigger on a used one, but it needed work that would have been cost prohibitive. Now that I can afford one – I don’t need one. It’s just me and the DW.
I almost bought a Tahoe. Two different separate times. But their interior space was less than the minivan we had at the time.
The new Suburbans with the 3.0L Duramax I6 diesel are very appealing to me.
Around my parts nobody drives Suburbans. Chevrolet is too redneck/trailer park. The Escalade was the hot ticket for a while until about 10 years ago. Too much rapper/thug/thats what your drug dealer drives.
Past 10 years everybody has been snapping up the Yukon Denali. It has the “right” badge/image for affluent suburban moms. Plus its a good bit cheaper than an Escalade comparbly equipped.
And if a Suburban was too big for you, you could get an Explorer! I drove minivans for almost twenty years, the big drawback was that with the early models you had to remove the seats to carry bulky cargo. Later on, Stow and Go cured that problem. SUVs had fold down seats, just like a traditional wagon. That was more convenient, and real SUVs are much better for towing than any minivan.
Big SUVs have been status symbols for quite a long time, now they are dolled up and super deluxe, and you can get the luxury makes for added spice.
It all depends on how you are going to use the vehicle, and if money is an issue. The new big SUVs can do everything, and very conveniently, if you don’t mind spending the money on the payments and gas. If you don’t need all the capability and prefer not to spend so much on gas, you can get by with something smaller and better suited to your day to day needs. I found that a minivan was better for my purposes than the used Explorer that I bought after my minivan years, but I enjoyed driving the Explorer more. My old Navigator is comfortable and spacious, and it is quite good for towing. I do have occasions to put it work, doing what it was built for.
If I had enough money and could afford to buy what I wanted, I wouldn’t have too much hesitation in buying a new Navigator or Expedition. I’m a Ford guy, I’d never buy a Chevy.
We live in Houston and as the article says Suburbans (also Tahoes, Yukons and Escalades) are still very prevalent. Ours was a 1989 and while it’s size, weight, and very poor fuel economy were absurd it was really very useful.
Here are some points about Suburban ownership:
1) There is absolutely no pressure to trade frequently. Most people who buy them expect to keep them forever and many owners of older ones like to talk about how many miles they have.
2) Maintenance and repairs reasonable, nothing tike what work costs on a Mercedes.
3) You get to pretend you own a ranch. Or, you are all set to go to the hunting lease. Everyone knows you cannot really go hunting unless you bring along at least 500 pounds of supplies and equipment.
4) Most owners think they are the safest possible vehicle. My guess is that data would show that other vehicles with all the airbags and etc. are equally safe but people believe what the choose to believe,
5) Bigger is always better!
My parents cross shopped these against full sized vans and the vans always came away the winners for a family of five. More comfortable overall. When it came to towing, the E250 Econoline with 351 and three speed was not only more comfortable but more efficient than the 3/4 ton Suburban while offering comparable tow ratings.
That said, I had a GMT 800 Suburban (used) for several years as it was much cheaper than a pickup capable of carrying sheet goods and mulch and various Harry Homeowner tasks. Wasn’t a big fan of the self destructing brake lines on it.
And I brought home a 351, a trans and transfer case in that Suburban that will theoretically wind up in a ‘61 Willys Utility Wagon someday.
I always wonder about the Suburban in terms of the difference between the US and Canada. Suburbans seem to be so well regarded and are statistically very durable vehicles in the US. And maybe they are in Canada now. But it seems they never really took hold up here. Seem very very American.
And my own experience with them as crew trucks has been terrible. They rattle and dissolve. They sag. When I worked seismic the head mechanic hated them with a passion enough to threaten to quit if the company ever sent more. And we had plenty of 3500 GMC trucks which were giving good service, So maybe it’s just the body or my perception.
It remains a puzzle to me as soon as I get across the line and all generations of them are plentiful. Like we somehow got an inferior version up here which of course isn’t true.
I went for a great hike with a big dog this morning. Left the 4 wheel drives at home and used the Fiesta with studded tires. Almost felt like a better adventure.
I think it depends on what part of Canada you live in. In big urban areas, like Toronto , these Suburbans have never been overly popular. In more rural areas, they definitely had a very positive image. I would say though during the square body years, the Suburbans in Canada were seen as more utilitarian than an image vehicle. They were popular in my area as Hydro trucks and other commercial applications. They also were desirable as a tow vehicles and for those with large families, although in these cases the were typically 1/2 ton 2WD models. I recall numerous families using them as a family vehicle. Contrary to your experience, Suburbans tended to have reputations of being indestructible and long lived. Even died in the wool Ford guys would show admiration for Suburbans.
The GMT400 generation definitely seemed to be the time when the Suburban moved over to being more of an image vehicle in my area of Canada. I worked at a GM dealer during the 90s and we sold lots of them as family vehicles. The owner’s wife always drove a new Suburban demo as their kid hauler.
The Suburban may have one of the wider demographics in the automotive world – at least in the US.
I live on a dead end street that branches off a dead end street. Neighbor diagonal from us has a Suburban, another neighbor up the street has a Suburban, and another has two Suburbans – although he is a funeral director and one is his business vehicle.
My uncle and his wife bought a Suburban years ago. He was 6’8″ and large framed and the three kids had his frame, so the ’84 LeSabre went away for a ’91 Suburban. The ’91 later went away for a newer Suburban they had until my uncle died.
When we stayed in downtown Los Angeles two years ago, we made good use of the hotel’s courtesy shuttle. It was a black Suburban that stayed within a three-mile radius of the hotel and ran for about 22 hours per day. If the Suburban did not have the right presentation, I guarantee this hotel would not have had it.
Part of me has always wondered if I should have bought a Suburban years ago instead of that Ford van. It doesn’t matter…nearly 15 years later, the van is still around.
Great timing for this article, as I just followed a very late-model Sub over Highway 17, driving our more cumbersome van. We both did fine though I agree a Jeep XJ or Caravan might be a bit better. Then I see the transit buses and double semi’s and think I’ve got it easy. By the way, I semi-seriously considered a used GMT800 Suburban as our retirement roadtrip vehicle, before we jumped in with both feet and bought our Transit in 2020.
Suburbans were certainly big in Silicon Valley in the early Nineties, but by the mid-90’s the Toyota Land Cruiser 80 Series and its Lexus LX450 badgemate, as well as the Ford Expedition, seemed to take over, at least at our kids’ school and soccer games in Los Altos. Now, I’m always surprised by the large number of Tesla Model X’es in the area; nationwide, it seems like a low seller but around here there are always customers for the biggest vehicle in a brand’s portfolio.
In the 90’s, my primary account where I worked was a successful Texas business owner. We went to dinner, one of his employees at the wheel of his Suburban. Instantly, I was aware that the relevance of a car as a prestige or luxury vehicle was done for. No big Chevy car, or Cadillac or Lincoln was going to provide the kind of space or comfortable seating you were going to get in a Suburban.
These were the next evolution of the station wagon, consistently offering all forward facing seats, some level of storage behind the third row, and providing real capability as a tow vehicle.
I bought my modern wagon in first gen Dodge Durango form. Probably my favorite vehicle among all that I’ve owned.
No one mentioned the Tahoe, which is much more popular where I’ve lived since it appeared. IRS has improved the third seat on all of them–why did it take so long? I wish the step-up height were lower.
Back in 2003 my wife laid her eyes on a fresh from the leasing company burgundy GMC Suburban. We had, at the time, an 92 Oldsmobile that I drove to work, an 86 Corolla that she used and a 91 Econoline conversion van for our trips from Ohio to Florida and back.
Next thing I know is, she’s trading in my Olds and the van for the Sub. Things didn’t turn out too well, but that will an article for someday! Suffice to say, the first month, not realizing the length, she backed out of a driveway and too far across the road, landing the big boat onto its frame…
My son extols the virtues of his 99 Suburban, because it’s cheap now, holds up 9 people with seats, or almost an 8′ pickup box without seats. His is a 3/4 ton that he uses for banging around in the woods, towing car trailers and work deliveries. He does have a Toyota Corolla for daily driving, sice a Suburban is still big and thirsty, although my pickup is longer.
In the NYC suburbs in the 80s XJ Jeep Cherokees were far more common, as Volvo and Buick replacements and Suburbans were rare. I do remember the Texas Monthly article about the Suburban as the official car of Texas. When we moved to Oregon Suburbans were far more common and I still new and old Suburbans and Tahoes despite the increased variety of big SUVs.
One of my “h/s”, friends family had a “74ish Suburban”. That “three doors”, thing was “novel”. ((at the time))
The seats reminded me of cushioned, bus station, benches.J
Here I am again, the “anti”. Granted I have a near pathological hatred of GM products, but even so I’m convinced 90% of Suburban sales are simply image. The bigger the better. With Chevy’s common use of C’s for vehicle names I’ve long refereed to it as the Chevy Conspicuous Consumption. Attempting to be fair, I refer to Ford’s version, which came out absurdly late in a business sense and far too soon in an ethical one, as the Ford Extreme Excess, given their fondness for names beginning with an E.
I will allow there is a use for a vehicle like this, big family, 4WD capability, towing a big boat/travel trailer etc. But very few are used like that and many are so light duty it’s laughable. My stepson and his wife had one for a time and I found great bemusement that it was rated as having a lower cargo capacity than my wife’s BMW station wagon. It was so softly suspended I thought I was going to get motion sickness riding in it. Weak shocks and no roll control. Oh yeah, soft springs too. Put 8 or 9 people in it, add a couple of hundred in cargo and you would be way over load capacity, which IIRC was right around a thousand pounds.
Curiously people driving vehicles like this don’t know what the gas mileage is, only the cost to fill it up. To which I reply to their complain that the problem is it has too large a tank if it costs too much to fill it up. I never get a response.
It’s an image vehicle, the bigger the better regardless of it’s use or need.
‘Burb’s have their place, for some there really isn’t a practical substitute. They tend to last, and even when old and beat up their resale usually makes them worth fixing. I knew a guy that had one of the first 6.2L diesel models, he had it for years and it usually delivered m.p.g. in the mid-20’s. That rust on the pictured example is usually caused by leaky roof rack and air deflector mounts, or sometimes the caulking goes bad on the pinch-weld above the back doors. Can help but wonder what a sweet rig that white ’67 must have been, particularly if it was powered by a 292 6 or 283 V-8 and a Turbo 400.
Great analysis, Paul. Undoubtedly, the surge in the Suburban’s popularity was driven by the image it projected. As we all know, car choices are rarely based purely on practicality. While there were pragmatic reasons—such as the Suburban’s significantly greater cargo space compared to a station wagon and its superior towing and hauling capabilities—I’m sure the majority of customers bought them for the image. They likely would have been better served by a minivan, but a Caravan isn’t as cool as a Suburban in the school line-up.
That said, while Suburbans might not always be the most practical urban family haulers, they are great vehicles. Despite the surge in popularity during the GMT400/GMT800 years, they remain relevant in today’s market due to their versatility. They are truly jack-of-all-trades vehicles with a well-deserved reputation for durability.
I owned a 1993 C1500 2WD, and it was an excellent vehicle—one of my all-time favorites. It was durable, reliable, a great tow vehicle, comfortable, and capable of hauling just about anything. Ironically, I bought my Suburban while shopping for a pickup, and it turned out to be a cheaper alternative due to its high mileage for its age. For my needs at the time, it checked all the boxes, and I genuinely liked it and enjoyed driving it—a big factor for me as a car enthusiast. Who wants to own a vehicle purely for practical reasons if they don’t like the car or hate driving it?
With the 350 and 4L60E, I could squeeze 20 MPG (US) out of it on the highway. My Suburban had a payload capacity of just under 2,000 lbs, and I overloaded it several times—but it handled it like a champ. It was also a very stable and solid tow platform, and the roof rack allowed me to carry kayaks or even extra-long lumber. I still miss that old truck.
This seems to be a great old truck that you’ve found and I can absolutely see the charm. The patina is what makes the difference for me. Those that I see around my parts are all bright shiny new and those are definitely less attractive to me.
Still, I would probably rather have the regular pickup style of this vs. the enclosed SUV. For me, the utility would come from having room to carry massive amounts of stuff, and I think the added height allowed in a pickup bed would be of benefit vs. the ability to carry a whole cub scout troop.
And, I think in your case, Little Man appreciates the lesser physical challenge of getting into the Scion vs. a Suburban.
Growing up, we had 3 vehicles – a 1984 olds cutlass, a 1978 datsun 620 with a 5 speed nicknamed “bebo” (that I learned to drive on), and a 77 4wd suburban named “leaky” because the roof had rust holes in it. We’d take it on scout trips and the guys in the troop knew the routine – grab the duct tape and start patching up the roof.
Leaky fell out of favor when another parent/currently a state governor in the troop bought a new suburban, at the tail end of the GMT400 run. Turns out a functioning A/C is more desirable than a cigarette lighter powered fan.
I too like these BIG trucks .
They’re too big for me but after my Motocycle crash of 2008 I needed to go collect the new Motocycle I’d bought whilst sitting in a wheel chair for a year .
I landed a nice survivor 1976 GMC 3/4 ton pickup then went to my local self – service junkyards and loaded up on factory accessories and farkles from junked Suburbans On The Cheap .
In the mid 1960’s I logged serious miles in two different light duty Suburbans, one a C/10, the other a K/10 snow plow rig .
Both were rusty beaters wit the 250 C.I.D. i6 engine and Muncie SM465 gearboxes, slow but wonderful and cheap/easy/simple to fix and swallowed multitudes of wild children for weeks long trips .
Sad that is iconic trucks are all but gone now .
-Nate
Great remarks. CC Fan has me laughing with his itemization. The Travelall body as shown was first introduced in 1955. It hung through the early 1969 model run because the new Travelall was not being produced. As one who sole International Trucks in the late 1960’s in Bridgeport, CT, I bought a 1968 (with A/C). Great vehicle except that it desperately needed disc brakes. Try being young, single (not handsome), and dating girls. Go to your date’s home in a 4700-pound, 17-foor plus behemoth painted dark green with a white roof. Now, that is a girl chaser of a vehicle if I have ever seen one! Still, I did, and I wed and we went on our honeymoon in the Travelall. Visibility is wonderful. Needed more insulation for noise and climate control.
Purchased a 1973 C20 in 1984 for $350. Restored it 3 times myself and drove it almost 500,000 miles over 32 years. That’s right 32 years into 2016. Only broke down twice.
I still get calls from General Motors that they hate me! Ha Ha.
I have 5 of the square body Suburbans now.
Eat your heart ot GM.
At one time, three sets of inlaws owned Suburbans. One even was a two-Suburban family. That seemed normal when they lived in Dallas. They became outliers when they were transferred to the suburbs adjacent to Philadelphia.
On CAFE. Nobody knew they wanted minivans until Chrysler offered one that had the room of a 60s Econoline and the comfort of a modern car. You can’t buy what isn’t offered. Might the passenger car have evolved into something taller, wider and more powerful? We will never know because that door was nailed shut by CAFE.
As to the difference between large cars of the 80s and Suburbans. Suburban (and vans like my Club Wagon) had the ability to offer larger engines and gearing that was not chosen to eked out those last .3 mpgs in the certification testing. They drove like big US vehicles have driven for the last 80 years. Not one of the big Ford or GM vehicles I owned from that period had a power train that was the least bit pleasant, especially with the axle ratios they had. Suburbans were also wide enough to accommodate 3 child seats in a row, something my 84 Olds 98 could not do.