Americans like things big. The country’s big, the meals are big, people are big, the roads are big, and the distances are far. Families used to be big. And big station wagons were the vehicle of choice for many of them. And America likes growth, so the wagons kept getting bigger and bigger, until certain externalities imposed themselves, in particular starting very shortly after GM started building the biggest ones ever, in 1971. This 1975 Buick Estate Wagon, the penultimate year it was built, is 231.8 inches (5887mm) long, longer than even that standard bearer of bigness, the 1976 Cadillac DeVille. By that criterion alone, as well as a few others for good measure, it truly is the ultimate American station wagon.
Although Ford historically lagged behind GM in station wagon sales, with their new 1965 wagons they were determined to beat their archrival Chevrolet. And sure enough, that did it, as proudly proclaimed in the 1966 ad: Ford outsold every other brand of station wagons. The key was innovative twin facing rear seats, and the ’66 upped the ante further with the clever Magic Doorgate that could open either as a door or fold down as a tailgate. Ford was now truly The Wagon Master.
Ford’s Country Squire, which proudly retained its fake wood planking when everyone else had moved on to sleek steel sides in the early-mid 50s, had long cultivated and enjoyed an upscale image, which probably helps explain why Buick’s and Oldsmobile’s big wagons just never sold well: the Country Squire was able to transcend the class structure, and was just as much at home at the country club as at the public pool.
Why pay quite a bit more for a decidedly un-Dynamic Olds or dull LeSabre? Ford had nurtured a better idea, and it was paying off handsomely. In fact, these GM boxy wagons that were sales laggards were calling out for some improvement to keep up with the Wagon Master.
Ford’s new-found dominance with its wagons was obviously an embarrassment to GM, which meant that something had to be done about it. Dozens of committee meetings on the 14th floor over a period of years resulted in leaning towers of memos and ultimately in some bold and brilliant decisions: Chevrolet would finally start applying Di-Noc fake wood to its upscale Caprice wagon in 1966. But it was still saddled with rather old-school rear-facing third seats. No, the new fake wood didn’t make much of a dent in Ford’s lead.
An unusual and more innovative approach was taken by Oldsmobile and Buick, which dropped their poorly-selling boxy B-Body wagons after the 1964 model year, in part because the outside supplier that built the bodies (Ionia) was sold off and Olds and Buick couldn’t justify the expense of tooling up a wagon version for the new 1965 bodies to build on their own lines.
So they created the extended-wheelbase A-Body Vista Cruiser and Sport Wagon, which we covered here. They were unique in that they used a lengthened wheelbase specifically to make a forward-facing third seat possible, and raised the roof for the extra headroom, as that third seat had to sit directly above the rear axle differential housing. This configuration also allowed for a reasonable cargo space behind the third seat, unlike in the Ford twin seats or the Chevy (and Chrysler’s) rear-facing third seats.
The ability of the Vista Cruiser and Sport Wagon to fold their third forward-facing seat down flush with the floor was actually a station wagon breakthrough. Through 1964, Ford’s 9-passenger Country squire required removing the seat cushions from the third seat frame before it folded flat into the floor. Which meant the cushions had to be stored in the garage or somewhere. And before 1960, the whole third seat head to be removed, frame and all. No wonder Ford was looking for a better solution, which they found in the twin rear-facing seats.
For its all-new 1971 full-sized wagons, GM was determined to take Ford on, and in the usual GM way when it set its mind to something: Out-gun them! And in every way possible, especially in engineering. Unlike anything to date, the new GM wagons were designed from the frame up specifically to have three forward facing seats and be the roomiest ones ever, as well as have a considerable cargo area behind the third seat.
It’s not hard to see where the inspiration came from. The Vista Cruiser was the warm-up act to the ultimate wagon, or in other words, the penultimate wagon.
These new wagons would be unlike any other ever built, with an extended wheelbase (125″ Chevy; 127″ Olds (shown above), Buick and Pontiac), and the frame was exclusive to the wagons as it had a totally different rear suspension, with semi-elliptic leaf springs in order to maximize interior space. And of course, they were big; the biggest wagons ever built.
This shot of a ’73 Chevy wagon hauling kids shows off its capabilities. These mega-wagons were the Suburbans or the (not-so mini)vans of their time; the best way to haul up to eight passengers and still have some room for secure and easy-to-load storage behind the third seat. Take that, Ford!
But that’s not all; to take on Ford’s Magic Doorgate, GM engineering prowess came up with the ultimate wagon tailgate solution: the Glide-Away tailgate, more commonly known as the clam shell tailgate. And take this, Ford!
Seeing it in action is the best way to describe it. But like so many other GM over-kill engineering solutions, it was not without its faults.
This one is the most common one: the electrically-operated glass won’t come down the whole way and leaves an inch or so open. This was shot on a cold and drizzly day, and I assure you that it was not open intentionally as I caught up with its owner heading to the recycling center with a load of cans and intercepted him.
There were other gremlins too, especially with dirt and grit getting into the rollers for the drop-down lower section. If it failed, it was expensive to repair.
The Glide-Away tailgate dictated the styling and structure of the whole rear end, which made these wagons very distinctive. The lower tailgate rolled down manually, but electric assist was available optionally.
The wrap-around rear side glass hid the large inner structure for the C-Pillar that had the tracks for the window, which of course slid up into the roof. When it was willing and able.
As in the Vista Cruiser, the roof was raised in the rear, both to provide the extra headroom for the third seat as well as to contain the tailgate window in the rear-most area. But no glass this time around, sadly. Very sadly.
Unfortunately, this Estate Wagon—the very first clam shell wagon I’ve encountered in Eugene—was a two-seat version.
But then that second row seat is wide enough to seat four, in a pinch. These cars had exceptionally generous hip and shoulder room thanks to the ‘fuselage’ styling with very convex exteriors.
And here’s the helm. The earlier versions had a rather ’69 Ford-ish wrap-around instrument cluster, but that gave way after a few years to this rather unambitious and uninspired design. GM’s cost cutting had been evident for some years.
It’s about time we took a look at the front end of this battle ship. As roomy as these were on the inside, they were still far from a paragon space efficiency, most of all because of that enormous front end. That adjective doesn’t quite do justice to it either.
The GM clam shell wagons may have been the ultimate of their kind in the US, but in France, Citroen was building what was truly the ultimate wagon, the CX Break, in terms of its technical ambitions. Although only 194″ long—three and a half feet shorter than the Estate Wagon—the FWD cab-forward CX Break had drastically better space utilization.
Even with three rows of quite roomy seats, the rear cargo area was about as big as many smaller station wagons with two rows, thanks to its long wheelbase, short hood, and very low load floor. And of course, there was no space-robbing trick clam shell tailgate to eat up a bunch of space in the back. Or to go on the blink. And then there was the CX’s hydropneumatic suspension. And its efficient four cylinder turbo-diesel engines, which yielded 30+ mpg.
And if one needed even more room, there was the Loadrunner six-wheeled version (by Tissier), often used as a high-speed express delivery vehicle.
Still not big enough? How’s this for the ultimate station wagon? Enough; let’s head back to good old America…
Raising the Buick’s Louisiana Territory-sized hood reveals a vast engine storage facility, big enough for one of GM’s EMD locomotive V16s. Never has a 7.4 liter engine looked so lost. Now imagine Buick’s 3.8 L V6 in there; no, thankfully it wasn’t actually available on the big wagons, but Buick did put some in the ’76 LeSabre sedans and coupes.
Appropriately enough—despite the energy crisis which came along and spoiled the fun—the 7.4 was the standard and only engine installed in the Estate Wagon. It was rated at 205 net hp, and had enough torque to move these well-over 5,000 lb. freight trains adequately down the road, as well as enough thirst to move the gas gauge needle equally fast from F to E. It takes hypermiling to break into the double digits, mpg-wise.
I hear that this generation of Buick V8s has some endemic oiling weaknesses that makes them susceptible to shortened lifespans. The Olds Custom Cruiser, although 0.8″ shorter and thus a bit less ultimate, was probably the better choice, engine-wise.
Now if GM had used the Toronado’s Unitized-Power FWD system in these wagons, where it actually made sense, instead of in a sporty luxury coupe, and had ditched all of that dead space under the hood, lowered the rear floor and increased passenger and cargo space, they would have truly built the ultimate station wagon.
It was seriously contemplated, and at least one or more Toronado station wagons were built as test mules. The resulting low floor in the back and the lack of a center tunnel was quite a revelation, I hear. Still way more front overhang than needed, but this is America.
Imagine a slightly shorter version of this. Now that would have been the ultimate wagon.
As it turned out, GM’s mega-wagons sailed right into the gales of the energy crisis, and were essentially DOA. In 1977, GM’s downsized cars arrived, like this 1990 Estate Wagon, having shed almost a full foot in wheelbase, a foot and a half in overall length, and over a thousand pounds. In fact they were now smaller than the Vista Cruiser had been, and GM’s ambitious forward-facing third rear seat was jettisoned; well, actually turned around in the old standby rear-facing direction. The ultimate wagons were now modest wagons for a new era.
Not to worry; GM had another superlative wagon for America, the Suburban, dubbed the Super Wagon. There is absolutely no coincidence that Suburban sales really took off in the late seventies. Most of all in big-loving Texas, where the Suburban became the default Mommie mobile.
I vividly remember a business trip to Houston in the early eighties, and there was a soccer field next to my hotel. In the afternoon, there was a parade of Suburbans lined up to pick up the kids from practice. And why not?
It was much roomier inside than the clam shell wagons, and yet over a foot shorter! Gas mileage couldn’t get worse than horrible. Maybe not quite a Citroen CX in terms of space utilization or ride, but this was just what America was looking for, a genuine Superwagon. And from 1977 forward, the conventional wagons never again played the top-dog role they had for so long. Their image soon foundered, especially as the SUV boom expanded beyond just Suburbans, and was quickly followed by the minivan boom. GM’s clam shell wagons were the end of the road for the big American wagon, in more ways than one.
These wagons are now like living dinosaurs, and almost as rare. This Estate Wagon makes for an impressive sight as it rumbles down the street. And it’s still hard at work, putting its prodigious size, weight, power and carrying capacity to work hauling about a pound and a half of empty aluminum cans to be recycled for ten cents apiece. It probably guzzled more gas on that trip than the cans are worth, even if it was a short trip. But then sheer economics were never what these wagons were all about. Being the biggest at anything almost inevitably doesn’t come cheap. Or without a few compromises. But it does assure that it will be noticed or not readily forgotten.
Related CC reading:
Curbside Classic: 1974 Buick Estate Wagon – Hold The Fake Wood, Please
Curbside Classic: 1971 Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser — Revisiting The Ultimate Station Wagons
>Curbside Classic: 1966 Oldsmobile Vista Cruiser – The Kiddie Wagon
Curbside Classic: 1969 Oldsmobile Vista Cruiser
I had a 1973 Caprice Estate wagon with the small block 400 and third seat. That third seat was actually very comfortable, even as an adult. You sat in a quasi reclined position. It probably wasn’t the best for pollution incursion, but we would sometimes drive locally in nice weather with the clamshell open..
Nice cars, nice read.
Did the glass bend slightly?
(D-pillar)
The glass doesn’t actually bend, but the upper track it rides on is curved and, if you look at the window being raised and lowered in the video, you can see hot the top of the glass gets pushed inward a bit to glide upwards in the track under the roof, and pops out again when lowered.
My parents and I looked at one in ’72. It sure looked like it bent. We decided the machinery was too complicated, and Mom thought it too large (she was driving a ’68 Electra), so we got a ’73 Century wagon, which wasn’t quite big enough and had wretched emission controls.
Wow, this was the Wagon-master of wagon overviews! Ford always ruled the wagon-sphere, our family had 4 of them: 2 Country Squires and 2 Country Sedans, and the ’63 even became my first car. The medium blue ’59 Squire was my favoriite, a gorgeous and classy car that could look at home anywhere. But to me the Ultimate wagon was not the Buick, but the Chrysler Town & Country, yes a tad over 3″ shorter but the class of the wagon class, and much more functional with it’s more useful rear space and more vertical conventional gate. We had a ’72 for a year or so, but the next gen with it’s more formal look was the ultimate Chrysler wagon.
My aunt had a ’75 or ’76 in the early ’80s, bought used from her boss who’d kept it in Florida. Said boss, the owner of the Lake Champlain ferries, also gave employees a standing free pass on them, for them and everyone in their car. In the summer of ’82 we got six adults and five kids in it on the short hops from my grandmother’s house in the south end of Burlington to the King Street docks, and from Port Kent which was the New York side of the crossing to Ausable Chasm. Most of the grownups and all us kids got out of the car on the ferry, though.
Not too long after she replaced it with a new 1983 Ford Escort wagon. The owner of the gas station she always used told her he’d had to let a guy go after that.
My family, with five boys born between 1957 and 1962, got around in a 1965 Pontiac Catalina wagon for years. It had the utilitarian rear-facing back seat.
When we moved to Alaska in 1974, we left the Pontiac behind and switched to a Chevy Suburban. Painted in a lovely shade of post-it note yellow, it looked like a 3/4 scale school bus. I took driving lessons in it, and when I went for my licensing test drive the examiner decided to waive the parallel parking demonstration. That beast had a 350 V-8 that made a whopping 160 HP, did 0-60 in a minute or so and topped out around 80 mph. And got about 8 mpg on a good day. The 40 (!) gallon tank gave it a highway range of about 250 miles, which was cut in half when we ( slowly) towed our 7500 lb boat to Whittier. We cringed when gas hit $0.75 a gallon, I can’t imagine how you could keep one of these on the road today.
Fascinating that, unlike the station wagon, the Suburban continues to endure over nearly a century. It’s just a big ‘ole, simple GM two-box that gets the job done when heavy-duty, enclosed hauling is called for, whether it be people and/or cargo. Even the onslaught of the minivan, which effectively snuffed-out the big, domestic station wagon, couldn’t kill the Suburban. Of course, there’s that whole CUV/SUV thing…
And, until recent political events may have put a crimp in the plan, there was a BEV version of the Suburban on the way in the next several years. Won’t that be interesting (if it actually happens).
It would make much more sense with a range extender than as a “pure” EV.
I took my drivers test in one of these. It was too long to fit within Ohio’s “maneuverability test” parking space but I centered it and they passed me. With heavy duty suspension, ours handled quite well for something so big. Unfortunately it had mysterious reliability problems that the dealer couldn’t fix, so we didn’t keep it long. When working right that car would eat up the miles. Yes, it was horribly space-inefficient. Very comfortable, though, and the third row was perhaps the least uncomfortable for tens and adults of any American wagon that year.
I remember riding in a 72 Buick Estate Wagon when it was near new with some other kids on a school field trip. I scored a middle seat, but remember that those in the back looked pretty comfy. Much more than the one time I remember an adult sitting with us in the back of Dad’s 66 Country Squire – that poor guy was really squeezed in with us kids.
When I was older a good friend’s dad had a 75 Olds Custom Cruiser. He never experienced tailgate trouble, but did experience the 7-8 mpg fuel consumption. It sat around a lot in 1979-80 until my friend got tired of the lack of heat in his 67 VW and decided that shoveling money into the Olds’ gas tank beat freezing.
I always considered these wagons to be some of the best looking ever built, especially the Olds Custom Cruiser version – the skirted rear fenders really worked on that design, IMO.
Agree completely with that last sentence. While the centers of the clamshell bodies were sharply rolled under toward the rockers, the rear quarters were rather flat in shape in order to accommodate the full sized spare tire on the right side and the vertically oriented fuel tank on the left. The difference in vertical contours can be seen while observing the Estates’s rear wheel openings in the photos above and once seen can’t be unseen. Oldsmobile’s 98 style skirts and sharp lower character lines did a really good job of hiding the mismatched shapes.
Agree with comments about the fender skirts on the ’71 to ’76 Custom Cruiser. I also really liked the fender skirts on the fuselage-body ’72 and ’73 Chrysler Town & Country.
Among the best-styled domestic volume people haulers of that era. Along with the Suburban, Colonnade wagons, and GMC Motorhome. Beautiful steep D-pillar rake, accommodating the retracting window. And the wraparound cargo windows. One of the few domestic family cars of the ’70s, that still looked futuristic, several model years after its introduction. Thanks heavily to the unique exterior design, of its cargo area. I’m not a fan of big cars, admittedly these had added style.
A car that cried out for a reliable diesel, or turbo-diesel option. These clamshells would have been better remembered, if they had a fuel-efficient option. Instead they are rightfully regarded, as among the Brontosauruses of 1970’s domestic cars. The outrageous scale, was polarizing. The practicality of the expansive wagon layout, was forgiving.
Unsuspectedly these were not that rare, in Central Canada. Certainly more common, than the Custom Cruiser, as I recall. Seemed popular for hauling families, less so cargo. Older owners, still of working age.
I like them purely, for the nostalgia they carry.
Yes, these Buick engines did have the worse oiling system imaginable. Big danger if the vehicle sits idle for a period of time, the oil pump hanging in front of the engine loses it’s prime, so that when started again, there will be no oil pressure. All Buick engines have this defect, starting with the 215 aluminum V-8 in 1961, going clear up to the V-6 and V-8 engines in the 1980’s. 20 years of making a defective engine. Yet Oldsmobile gets criticized for a 1-2 year fix to make their diesel engine bullet proof.
One of the school carpool drivers when I was in elementary school drove a blue, woodgrained Olds Custom Cruiser, probably a ’73 or ’74. It had the power tailgate, forward-facing third row seat, and the fancy interior trim from the Ninety-Eight including the door cards with huge armrests. It certainly stood out as more luxurious and newer than the mid-to-late ’60s low-trim Ford or Dodge wagons I rode in on other days. The unusual tailgate didn’t make much of an impression on me (although I do recall seeing it in use a few times), but the forward-facing 3rd row certainly did. I never got to ride back there unfortunately.
For me there was a definite pecking order for wagon 3rd row seats:
– front facing was best and coolest
– dual inward-facing sideways seats were second best. You could easily talk to the kid in the other seat, which was good as long as I liked whoever was seated there
– rear-facing wasn’t as nice, as it’s just unnatural to see where you’ve been but not where you’re going. Plus the seats tended to be cramped and uncomfortable.
– worst was no 3rd row seats at all. It seemed acceptable back than to just have kids sit cross-legged on the floor, which wasn’t even carpeted in most of these.
That Olds, and a brown early-’70s Chevy Townsman with no 3rd seat and the manual tailgate were the only clamshell wagons I rode in. I don’t remember them seeming huge though – that was just the normal size of American full-size wagons in the early to mid-’70s. The clamshells were a tad bigger than most but they didn’t stand out for it. The curved track that the window slid up into the roof on did seriously encroach on load-area height. There’s no way you could fit this setup into the smaller, boxier wagons that replaced these in 1977; instead GM copied Ford’s “3-way magic doorgate”, but went with rear-facing seats rather than Ford’s sideways-facing versions. Despite the newly squared-off roofline, the downsized B-body wagons had considerably less cargo and 3rd-row seat room than the clamshells. I also though GM was lazy by using nearly all of the same sheetmetal on all four brands of wagons. while the clamshells shared only roofs and tailgates.
I did not know what a hassle folding down and/or removing the 3rd row seats was in pre-1965 wagons. Every wagon I remember had 2nd and (if equipped) 3rd row seats that folded into the floor. Exceptions were vans and SUVs which needed tools to remove the seats. I had a childhood friend whose family car was a Ford Club Wagon Chateau and that had space efficiency that outdid even the Suburban.
That “proto, experimental, Toronado”, wagon looked kind a good.Wonder what the driving experience was like?
The “VW squareback’s” were surprisingly steady, sturdy.
A little thing I can’t unsee and it’s bothering the heck out of me: 3 measly portholes on the side of the ’75 Estate Wagon. The ’74 had 4 of them (per the catalog).
It just seems to scream, “This year I’ve been de-contented!” But they weren’t, were they? It doesn’t look any more fuel-efficient…
What’s with that?
I’m intrigued by the clamshell rear hatch but it strikes me as a ‘great when it works’ feature. It would have been perfect for the Toronado wagon that never was, it’s a real shame it was never put into production, I think it has something the actual production full sized wagons lack in terms of both style and practicality.
I knew about the Toronado limo conversions but not the prototype/experimental Toro wagon. I too thought the big wagons were where the FWD Unitized Power Package belonged. Those flat floors would have been amazing on a car that often and front and 2nd-row center passengers, plus maybe some additional space could be scooped up in the cargo/3rd row seat area.
Well done!
Regarding big families and station wagons. North of me, across the river, it’s Bible Belt County. There was this car dealership, Piet Geluk (Lucky Pete). Throughout the years, they sold a good number of Breaks and Familiales. Not the Citroën CX, of course (way too extravagant!), but the more down-to-earth Peugeot 505.
IMO, these are one of the least attractive wagons produced in the US. Such bloat. A rear end that mimicked a Pacer even before that was put into production. GM made up for it with the ’91 to ’96 generation, which are, to this day, some of the most attractive wagons produced, not far from the ’86 Taurus/Sable.
I remember these behemoths coming in to my family’s garage. The clamshell tailgate was always a problem in these cars. The only way way to fix it was to disassemble the entire thing, top and bottom, clean out and replace any broken parts.
Needless to say that cost a pretty penny and by the time we got them, they were already well worn. I recall quite a few owners declining to repair the clamshell when they found out how much it would cost.
Making an obscure point about the 3rd seat.
Took my driving test in a ’73 Impala wagon. It was a “9 passenger”, iirc.
From viewing videos, I believe the 3rd seat stowing was simplified in later models. In our ’73, the seat cushion covered the diff hump, was attached to the seatback & retracted into the floor when the seatback was folded. In videos of later models, the seat appears to be immovable & had a cutout over the diff hump. These later models were “8 passenger”.
First vehicle I remember going on school field trips in, in third grade, was my best friend’s mom’s Chevy Suburban. Red and white with the camel tan vinyl interior. My friend was an only child like me, but her folks had a Holiday Rambler travel trailer like the one the yellow Burb is towing in the first advertisement. That Burb had a 454, and towed that trailer all over the country on their vacations.
In 182 my brother was born, and our folks got a dealer demonstration ’82 Buick LeSabre estate wagon at the end of the model year. Looked much like the ’90 pictured except “Lester” was solid color (Pewter Metallic) with no woodgrain. That Buick went all over Texas with us, and to New Orleans with Mom, me, baby bro and both grandmas, plus all the stuff you have to travel with, with little ones. Did the job admirably; the occasion was my “senior trip” to the 1984 World’s Fair and 4 days in Nola. Only issue was getting it in and out of the parking garage at the hotel….
My family drove the snot outta that car for about 15 years. Finally outgrew it, hauling the family and whatever we took to automotive swap meets, so we got our first square body Burb. If your life involves hauling lots of people and/or gear, a Suburban or van is really the best choice. Both are truck based and way more durable and capable than a car based SUV or crossover. The downside, of course, is manueverability and parking them in the not so wide open spaces….
We were Mopar wagon folks, but I remember riding in the 2nd and third seats of many of these. What I remember is a very thin 3rd seat and the weird corkscrew to get back to that seat.
The other thing that’s really apparent when you look at one of these wagons from above is the extreme tumblehome on the sides as well as the more obvious slope on the rear. The actual roof space is surprisingly small compared to the footprint of the lower body.
Some of the uglist autos made, they did look like the pacer which was not at all attractive. As a child my family had 2 Chevy wagons, finally a 70 Buick estate wagon with a 455, the Chevys had small block 8’s but had factory ac in the 61 Nomad and 65 Impala which had the rear facing 3rd seats. My Dad did not like Fords. For wagons were more attractive than those clamshell beasts.