(first posted 5/21/2014) It’s no secret that the 1977 GM B-body is a CC favorite, and that we’ve had a lot of fun trashing most results of the second round of GM downsizing. There are nevertheless some devoted fans of the full-size front-wheel drive H and C bodies here, myself included. This blue 1986 LeSabre Custom has seen better days, but it’s an example of the H-platform in its earliest form, and as they’re getting thin on the ground, now is a good opportunity to share why I find these cars so respectable.
To start with, they embody all of the best American car stereotypes my father taught me: excellent isolation from noise and harshness; industrial strength climate control; and jet-smooth acceleration from a silky automatic and ample torque. They were a better expression of these virtues, if I may say so, than the B-bodies which preceded them, even if their use of small-car architecture would suggest otherwise. In fact, they’re one of the most notable uses of newer technology to replicate a traditional experience that I can think of. The Volvo 850 also comes to mind, as it also built its forebears’ virtues into a modern package, but that car behaved differently enough that its a less instructive example.
And what distinguishes the H-bodies from their downsized GM brethren is that they didn’t feel like a compromise. Admittedly, few would use these to tow heavy trailers, and for police, taxi and station wagon duty, the B-body remained king, but in daily use as passenger cars, they were quiet and unflustered like a good domestic sedan. It’s no wonder they sold well to private customers.
Without as much weight as their predecessors or a separate frame, tuning these cars for a Dream Whip ride required somewhat of an uncompromising approach. This may not have been appropriate for a Toronado, but in cars like the Electra or LeSabre, there was little arguing with the results. Even though fuel-prices were getting lower by 1986, not everyone wanted a big, full-frame rear-drive sedan. The near-immediate mainstream success of the Ford Taurus was enough proof of that, but for those who wanted the sort of tranquil experience they’d find in a Crown Vic in a more sensible package, the H bodies delivered in a way the midsize Ford and large K-based Chryslers never could. These were cars in which you could easily write a letter or apply makeup while in motion.
As the C and the H bodies shared so much engineering with the E-body (Riviera/Toronado/Eldorado) and K-body (Seville), some comparison is in order. For those more expensive nameplates which theoretically competed against German sports sedans, the shrunken American traditionalist theme obviously wasn’t the best approach. But no one was going to compare the LeSabre against the likes of the Mercedes E-Class (as with the Seville), so even though the Olds and Buick sedans were somewhat one-dimensional; the task of shrinking them onto a large-front drive platform was certainly easier and there was less need to make them jacks of all trades.
There’s been a lot of carping about GM styling from this era and this car follows most of the unloved themes seen in the E, K and N bodies. If that isn’t your cup of tea, I won’t be able to change your mind. It seems apparent enough that the goal was to bring the outgoing B-bodies into the late ’80s and by that measure, the stylists did good work, successfully cloaking the old shape in contemporary details. The hidden A-pillar and clamshell hood were especially modern looking, and the belt-line, pleasingly low. It fairly screams “passengers and cargo,” but cleverly avoids looking tall.
The upright roofline and large rear wheel openings which characterize period GM styling are evident here; I suppose it doesn’t give the most modern or dynamic impression, but producing any car with the sort of proportions seen on the likes of the Taurus wasn’t part of the plan when management was more worried about scaring existing audiences away. Again, shrinking the B-body and giving it modern touches was the goal, and it’s most apparent here, where the narrow pillars and very slender door frames bring the previous car’s shape in line with contemporary expectations. I think it’s well done, but it’s obviously not meant to be sporty. If there’s anything evident to find fault with from this angle, it’s not the styling, it’s the fit and finish. Note the gigantic gap between the trailing edge of the side molding on the rear door and the section in front of the wheel arch. Also apparent is the failure of the trim at the bottom of the vinyl top to meet the border of window frame. Sloppy.
That lax approach to fit and finish never went away and can be seen throughout the car’s later versions, but at least reliability was brought to a very high level by the end of the ’80s. A lot of people eventually came to swear by the H-body LeSabre, but when it was introduced, the outlook was not good. Early versions of GM’s excellent 440 T4 automatics weren’t the most long-lived, but they improved with the revised, renamed 4T60. And when it comes to large front-drive sedans, automatic transmissions generally aren’t the most bulletproof (the three-speed Torqueflite and most Aisin-Warner units are exceptions).
It’s therefore surprising to see one of these very early models, although it’s resisted rust reasonably well. Interior trim and body hardware was often not securely fastened, and it was not unheard of for parts to break off in one’s hand. The trunk lock and left-rear taillight assembly are in the process of divorcing themselves from this car, but as it’s happened over the course of twenty-eight years, this may be due to any number of factors.
This battered, base-level Custom may not be clean, but I don’t think it’s been driven any extraordinary distance, because I’d expect more tears in the upholstery if that were the case. A good friend recently managed to find a pristine 1995 LeSabre with something like 40,000 miles on the clock and it took only a few months of regular before the upholstery began tearing. The dashboard in that car would visibly shake over bumps which couldn’t be felt by passengers, so the junky quality of the H bodies’ trim never fully improved. Note the missing knob from the gear selector in the featured car; that was a GM specialty in those days. As one of the parts a driver touches most frequently, that undoubtedly gave some owners a very bad feeling, but as the cars improved over the years, the worst expectations associated with such omens didn’t always materialize.
It’s a good thing GM managed to get to the point that the LeSabre could be called reliable, because in other respects, they were a high point during some very dark years. Despite moving to the famously rigid G-body in their final generations, the full-size sedans which appeared on the H-body were much more plush and more popular. It just goes to show that GM understood that plenty of people needed a velour-lined isolation chamber. If only that understanding weren’t applied to other market segments, resulting in so many deadly sins, these cars might be more widely respected today.
Related reading:
1987 Olds Delta 88 Royale: “H” is for Harmony & 1985 Buick Electra Park Avenue: Best-Dressed C-Body Of The Year
Nice article – and I appreciate your admiration for these H bodies – but I’m afraid I’m a dissenter – as you note, these cars have horrible build quality and staid, derivative styling. The only plus are the stout mechanicals.
Every time I see one I can only think of the Lincoln commercial from the mid-80s…..
I agree with Lincolnman on this; you talk about how good these cars were and then, all throughout the article, you describe how notorious they were for parts falling off, poorly upholstered seats, cheap plastic on the interior bits, ad infinitum. I do understand how some people could have good feelings for these vehicles, I expect it has to do with one’s age and what cars were out there when one first starts to notice them. I am old enough so that cars from the late 50’s thru the early 70’s appeal strongly to me. Of course that means that most cars from the 80′ (and on) are just transportation modules. In any case differences of opinion are what makes the world go round, it would be a much poorer experience if everyone liked and wanted to have the same things.
Good article with good points, though I can’t help to point out that finding faults and pointing out “quality issues” on a pretty run through near 30 year old car that is still in service is a bit petty. Without a shot of the odometer there is no way of knowing if this car has 40,000 miles or 400,000 miles.
I was surprised to see the wear on the seats. I don’t remember these seats wearing that badly (not too bad for 30 years however!).
Is that crummy top even factory? I don’t remember them looking like that. Would a base-model Custom have that?
I think it might be factory, but it has seen better days. A factory vinyl top was still available on Buick and Oldsmobile C/H cars through 1990-1991, though you didn’t see them that often. Buick still offered a factory vinyl top on the Riviera through 1993 and on the Roadmaster until 1996.
The cloth seat upholstery did not wear that bad in 90% of the examples I have seen so lets not take this out of context. We still get many 1987-91 examples of this very car in to sell and the seats are still as new in many, even with well over 150K miles. It’s severe abuse cars like this that may suffer from holes tears and rips for many ungodly reasons and as stated this car could have as many as 300k miles or more which is not unusual at all. The leather seats cars are a different story. Those are almost always shot and worn on high mileage examples.
I would also agree, the sentiment given by the commercial is a valid indictment against this era of GMs. The one thing the Buicks had was a pretty reliable powertrain with the 3800. Looks wise, I think the previous generation was much better as were the subsequent two generations. I’d much rather have a later LeSabre, same good engine, but with better styling, larger size, and better build quality.
At least for the Buick models, I still see a few of these around though usually a lot more rusty. Many of them provided a reliable, even if not terribly cool, first HS car.
L O V E that commercial!
It’s still true almost 40 years later; perhaps even more so today than when released.
Even my Mother, who views her cars as appliances, can spot and name Lincoln Town Cars from the early 1980’s until the last one made.
It is a goal of mine to find me the cleanest, lowest mileage, last generation Lincoln Town Car “for keeps”.
Dude, almost 40 years ago was 1975. Math…it’s your friend.
Oops! My Mistake, small I-phone icons, fat fingers. Thanks for that pithy, small change rejoinder of yours.
You shocked me and made me feel old for a moment until I thought…1986 wasn’t 40 years ago…..yet….
Great commercial, didn’t remember it, but it’s ironic that today all Lincoln’s (if I’m not mistaken) are warmed over Ford cars or trucks, while the majority of Cadillacs and some Buicks are unique cars (Cadillac ATS and CTS, Buick Regal)!
I can imagine the Ford executives at the time laughing their butts off when they came up with the idea for that commercial.
Sorry for the very late reply but I guess this is where cartoonist Jeff MacNelly, who penned the comic strip Shoe for years, found his inspiration for this comic strip.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190208033550/http://gas2.org/2017/08/16/tail-fin-road-locomotive-yesteryear/
Unfortunately I can’t find a bigger image.
A good, balanced writeup, Perry. And I’m a little jealous that you found an early sealed-beam example. I always hope to find sealed-beam versions of cars that crossed over into the composite-headlamp era as pretty much all of them are tough to find.
I’m very confident in my affinity for these vehicles. I’d love to find a T-type version of this generation Lesabre or Electra, but those are tough to find.
Word. The T-type coupe of this was pretty much my favorite car of the era. Just so good looking.
Any of the H-body coupes were good looking, both the Delta 88 and the LeSabre, its a shame that the “big coupe” era had mostly passed by the time these came out, they never were big sellers in the coupes, thought they did hang around until 1990-1991 or so.
Try one of the 1986 only LeSabre Grand Nationals for “rare”, they only made 112, or 117, depending on who you ask.
Spotted one of those about 7 or 8 years ago. I have a photo somewhere, but I didn’t know how rare it actually was until much later.
The LeSabre and 88 coupes of this generation, both, were so good-looking. The sweep of the C-pillar just worked. Diametrically opposite of the Electra and 98 coupes, which both looked horrible with their overboxy formal roofline and oddly large “rear” windows.
People still wanted full sized rear wheel drive cars. They couldn’t have them because of CAFE. That’s why we became a nation of truck drivers.
This car is sadly of the era when GM was obsessed with back windows that doubled as headrests. Other than that, they’d have been great rental cars.
I’d say people still wanted big cars, with room, but moved on to SUV’s. The crushed velour, vinyl top, floaty boat cars simply went out of style. {To most Boomers, they were old man’s cars} Some may have wanted V8, just to say they have it. But, most average people don’t know/care what’s under the hood.
Other thing is 4 wheel drive became a status symbol, even if only used on snowy street, or never.
The early suv boom was just about to start snowballing when these came out, I remember when Cherokees suddenly started appearing in family driveways. The C/H cars had to strike a difficult middle ground with buyers, but I’ll admit they weren’t fully successful at that. The styling was conservative to keep current Oldsmobuick buyers, though many did balk at the size. The size was trim enough and fuel economy was good enough to interest newer boomer buyers, but the styling was too conservative for many of them.
A Catch-22.
It’s not that you couldn’t get one of these in a manner that would interest a younger buyer, with bucket seats(in the coupes) and alloy wheels and gauge packages, its just that there weren’t many ordered that way, not sure who to lay some of the blame on regarding that? dealers? or customers?
From what I recall, at least down here in Miami, it was not really commong to see a “gran touring” or “FE3” alloy wheeled LeSabre or Delta 88, with the gauge cluster and sans whitewalls and bric-a-brac.
The H-body that probably made the most inroads with “younger” buyers was the new for 1987 Bonneville. The monochromed SE and later teched up “AMG meets BBQ” SSE packages provided one of the more interesting choices in the big car GM line up.
It’s also interesting to note that Chevrolet said “see ya” to their portion of the H-body development around 1983 and decided to not participate, what came out as the 1990 Lumina had originally been styled way back in 1982 as Chevrolet’s H-body Caprice/Impala replacement.
I thought that the 2-door version of this was quite the looker. I really like the front end on the ’86. The flush headlamps and the grille used from ’87 on messed up the look, though. It was a facelift that *looked* like a facelift.
I owned an ’87 Bonneville and suffered through the lack of quality, particularly mechanical and paint. It drove well and had satisfying power for it’s day, however. And that red instrument panel lighting… felt like I was in a high tech fighter jet!
I thought that it was interesting that they introduced these with sealed beams for one year and then changed over to flush headlights for 1987, even though flush headlights were already available in 1986, the Eldorado and Seville launched with them, I guess Cadillac wanted to have them first and then let the other divisions add them on.
I remember flush headlights and the 3rd brake light being the “new thing”. They rapidly spread through every automakers line up between 1985-1988 they even made their way down to the lower end cars.
It was a GM thing. Many 1985-87 GM cars had 1-2 year only header panels before the switch to composite headlights. My 86 Caprice is a one year only model, as were 86 A-bodies. Toronado, Riviera and the FWD C bodies also had brief stints with sealed beams before switching. GM also went the other way, adding composite headlights for a year or two to outgoing models like Skyhawk, Firenza, Monte Carlo and Cutlass Supreme. Seems like most other manufacturers made a clean break as models were restyled. The Mustang SVO is the only domestic exception I can think of, and I think that was a supply issue. Third brakelights (CHMSL) came in 1986 for all US cars/wagons, 1991 for Mopar minivans, and 1994 for all other minivans, pickups, SUVs and vans.
Actually, the Toronado never got composites, it had sealed beams all the way to the end due to its hidden headlights. From what remember all the C/H body cars got them by 1987, the Riviera was the last hold out, not getting them until 1988.
Good call Carmine, my bad on the Toronado. Your comment about the Riv prompted me to do some looking. It seems that the Olds Cutlass Calais, Ciera and Supreme got composite headlights for 1987, though curiously the Firenza did not get them until 1988. The Buick Regal (rwd) and Skyhawk never got composite headlights, the Somerset/Skylark had to wait until 1988, and the Century until 1989 for them. Seems a bit odd that GM would make Buick the last holdout for sealed beams.
This car looks to be a near twin of my youngest brother’s first car from around 1993 or so. He wanted something cool like an old BMW, but my father had a friend who was a small town car dealer who had one of these come in on trade. These were far from uncommon then (especially in Van Wert County Ohio, where you couldn’t spit without hitting a Republican or one of these LeSabre sedans), so it was not the most exciting thing. But the Buick served him very well through his college years and into his first job.
I used to have an ’85 Park Avenue – LOVED IT!
Very comfortable ride. Loved the 3.8 – the car got well over 30 mpg, but still had plenty of power. Power everything, digital dual climate control, almost unheard of options back when Tears For Fears and Survivor weren’t considered classic rock. Coolest feature was the reverse opening hood with the Buick shield logo insulation mat.
I thought that it was interesting that Buick did that unique forward opening hood on their H/C cars, while Oldsmobile and Cadillac stuck to traditional hoods. Its one of the things that shows that even though these cars make look very similar they are not direct rebadges like a K-car.
Interesting thing about Buicks and their hoods. I recall early 1950’s Buicks had hoods that opened from either the left or right side. They also had the radio antenna rising from the middle of the windshield with a knob on the inside that let you turn it. And also the starter under the accelerator. Of course there was also their unique engines and Dynaflow. None of this was ever shared with their GM brethren. The cars has personality. One never sees such individuality today.
the 1985-1990 Buick Park Ave’s did not come with dual climate control- it was either digital or analog
I do like them- asides from the few that come with TEVE’s ABS
Ah TEVES II ABS. I have that in my Mark VII. Once it dies it’s getting ripped out and replaced with conventional power brakes.
mine TEVE’s master cylinder has gone bad- my mechanic has suggested just leaving it as is,
Good article but I am not a fan of the subject cars. This family of cars sold a lot of Ford products to me. Wasn’t that much wrong with them that I knew about. After the wife wrecked the caddie it was Ford and rwd for a long time. Now we have gone “off shore”.
I have to say that my 95 98 Regency Elite is holding up pretty well. There are some scrapes, dings and dents from the previous elderly owner, but cosmetically otherwise it is holding up very well. The old gold paint is not fading or peeling yet and the leather interior has no splits or tears. I have replaced all of the missing knobs from the stereo and the climate control with new ones from Radio Shack. The only items not working are the tape and cd players because they were apparently never used. This car’s current mileage is in the low 68k range and the same mechanic has been working on it since the new car warranty expired. It was purchased new at Galles Motor Co. in Albuquerque, NM and has never had any rust whatsoever!
Ahhhhh! The broham roof treatment is falling apart. And god here is a chain smoker. I’d hate to experience the aroma of that! 😐
Every time I think of smoking in a car, I remember the old man I saw once driving an early 80’s Cutlass sedan, I was at a light, I looked over to the right and there was this old man puffing on a stogie in his Cutlass, with the windows up in a rain storm, that car must have smelled nice inside
That is an aftermarket vinyl roof so that is one thing you can’t blame on GM. The evidence is the black rubber molding around the drip rails, and the fact that the bright trim where it meets the quarter panel is short.
As shown on this Similar Sized Buick Compilations of 4 Door Sedans, the 1986 FWD H-Bodied Buick Le Sabre had numerous design similarities with other previous Buicks as shown here such as the 1978 RWD X-Bodied Buick Skylark, the 1980 RWD A/G-Bodied Buick Century and the FWD H-Bodied Buick Le Sabre’s closest kin, the 1985 FWD C-Bodied Buick Electra. INMHO though, I would have to say that the RWD X-Bodied Buick Skylark had more of a styling influence and size to the FWD H-Bodied Buick Le Sabre. ALL 4 were scaled to their actual sizes BTW and it was also no coincidence that I had selected various shades of Blue for this photo compilations as well.
The following Buicks pictured here were the Two Door Coupe versions of some of the Four Door Buicks shown above. These were the Mid-Sized Buicks which were within the size range of the FWD H-Bodied Buick Le Sabre. They were ALL scaled to their actual sizes BTW.
The smaller FWD LeSabre wasn’t as much a ‘shock’ to Buick loyalists, it certainly was roomier than the A body Century and N body Skylark. Also, the 1989 models scored high in intial quality. It ended up becoming the #1 selling full size car.
My father and I have owned Buicks and Cadillacs for a combined 70 years and we’ve never had an interior as wrecked up as this one. We’ve never had any tears, scratches or parts falling off. We’ve carried lumber, two by fours, pipes inside the car, one end in the passenger footwell the other on the rear shelf. Some old blankets kept these things from damaging anything. WTF do people do inside their cars?
Never was a fan of the GM C and H Bodies. That said, I did have an ’89 Sedan DeVille for a time, and other than an appetite for water pumps (and those are NO fun to change…) it was a decent, if not remarkable car. The back seat did suck, as I found out once while coming back from the Brickyard 400 back in ’99 (i was worn out and let my brother do the driving). GM seems to have decided the best way to gain rear seat legroom was to make the seatback almost bolt upright. WTF?
Another interesting touch these cars has was the license plate drop in slot in the trunk, notice that the license plate has no screws, it just drops in through a slot when the trunk is open, making it virtually theft proof. This was very clever, and as far as I can tell, it was only on the Buick LeSabre and Electra and none of the other GM cousins and no other manufacturer has done it since these cars.
Also the rear tail lights are hinged, so you can unlock them from inside the trunk and swivel them up to replace the bulbs, there was lots of clever engineering in these cars, contrary to the “stupid GM” mentality that many people have, these cars were pretty smart.
We had 2 of them, a sliver 1987 Limited sedan and a white 1990 Limited sedan.
Did the LeSabres have the reverse hinges on the hood like the FWD Electras?
Always thought that feature was cool. I remember a comparo article in 1985 that Consumer Reports did on “big cars” featuring (I think) the new Electra, the Grand Marquis, and the Chrysler Fifth Avenue.
They seemed impressed with the Electra but in the end picked the GrandMa as #1 and “one of GM’s older rear drive cars” as #2. The Electra placed 3rd (due to reliability concerns) and the Fifth Avenue, which they excoriated, placed last.
Yep, both Buick C/H cars had the forward opening clamshell hood, which provided really nice access to the engine compartment, and these cars had big engine bays for a transverse engined V6 car, everything was easy to get to.
Cool.
Found the CR review I mentioned (on a Mopar site)
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/mikesspot/85CR2.html
I had forgotten how back in the day they used to comment on how well the climate control system would heat or cool the car’s interior. You never see this in any tests anymore. They only comment on the ergonomics as if they all work fine otherwise. Maybe they do in a temperate climate but where I live temperatures vary from -35C to +35C and not all climate control systems can cope with these extremes.
It was big because it was engineered to hold that enormous 4.3 diesel V6, that was basically 3/4 of an Olds HD 350, and it absolutely filled it up. Ditto the underhood cavern of a Cutlass Ciera. Click website link to see a Century with that engine. The same car with a 3300 feels much more energetic and has lots of room under there.
My 1993 Regal Gran Sport 4 door had the drop in license plate. I too, thought it was very clever and it made cleaning the plate or positioning a new renewal sticker very simple. Picture attached is an example, not the actual car I owned.
Mr. Bill
I forgot that the Regal had it too. I liked that vintage Regal GS, I almost bought a coupe as a driver back in the very early 2000’s.
My favorite GM-10!
All the GM-10’s were very handsome cars, I always liked the Regal, though if I had to pick one favorite, it would be the 1989-1990 ASC-McLaren Turbo Grand Prix coupe.
The Chevy Lumina Z34 coupe had the drop in plate design too!
I’d say that the GM-10 cars were probably some of the best looking cars that GM made in the 80’s, a sign of life after the design dumps of 1985-1986. I would add the Beretta to that list too. In spite of several misses, GM still did make a few attractive cars in the 1980’s, the F-body, Corvette, The W’s, Reatta, Beretta, The GMT-400 C/K pick ups, H-body coupes.
I’ve always wondered why people make such a fuss over flimsy plastics and knobs in the interior. True, you’d want your $30k car to still look the part after 5-10 years of ownership, but as annoying as it can be to watch a button fall from the dashboard, a reliable drivetrain seems (to me anyway) MUCH more important. There are plenty of VWs and Audis (and Hondas) in the junkyard at this very moment with beautifully intact interiors whose engines have self-destructed waaaay ahead of schedule.
Overall, I’m inclined to agree. Also, I have never had too much trouble with trim pieces falling off on my old GM and Ford rides. Issues with seat deterioration, yes, but as expensive as that is to fix, I’d still prefer a reliable powertrain since I can still drive around on shreddy cloth seats.
I understand the criticisms of say, Cadillac or Lincoln for using plastiwood when they could have used real wood. Yes, they could have and maybe should have to preserve exclusivity and brand prestige. But I’d still rather have the running Cadillac with plastiwood than the broken Audi with real wood, as you intimated. The power train is why the old Cadillacs are still tooling around.
I agree with you to a point that there is too much complaining about plastic interior pieces. OTOH, then there was the disaster that was my ’95 Grand Am. Yes, the Quad 4 powertrain held up OK (except for water pumps), but what good is that when everything else starts falling apart practically the minute I drove it off the dealer lot new? This was way beyond knobs falling off. I think people do have an expected level of durability for interior trim and components; does this Buick meet that level? I believe it was better than my Grand Am, but I doubt this Buick set any sort of optimum standard for interior quality.
There’s a myriad of cars from the same time period that used better plastics than these for the same or less money. I have NO problem with the use of plastics in interiors, but flimsy plastics that crack warp and change color like a mood ring are something that should be left to happy meal toys, not something you make monthly payments for.
The fake wood snobbery on the other hand I’ll never get. Really what does it matter when the “real wood” is covered under 11 layers of glossy clearcoat? And most if not all cars that do have “real wood” use a thin veneer for the grain laminated over the “real wood” which is basically an ugly knotty piece substrate.
Could not agree more. Saw and touched the real wood in the new Cadillacs. Looks like the “old” fake wood to me with all that glossiness.
In some ways the fake wood looked more real. The wood on my old Buick is not as glossy as either the current real wood or even the 80s Cadillac fake wood. Without that sheen, it almost looks more realistic, at least from a distance.
None of them are like an old English car, so I agree, what’s the fuss.
Can I add leather trim to the criticism of the wood trim? Mostly it is hard to tell the difference from vinyl as it is so heavily treated !
My Godparents bought one of the first FWD ’86 Buick Electra’s in town; which ended their over 30 year love affair with Buicks.
The transmission died just after the warranty expired, the electronic touch control for the A/C kept flashing off and on, trim pieces fell off in their hands, the vinyl top developed rust bubbles underneath in less than 2 years here in Hot & Humid New Orleans, LA, USA.
After that car they bought Crown Vics and Town Cars until they passed away.
Despite being a RWD fan, I haven’t and won’t trash the H-Bodies. They were workmanlike, practically designed and attempted to preserve the big car space and ride for an anticipated era of high gas prices and high regulation. For what they were designed to do, they did it. And they sold. You can’t argue with that. In fact, I remember seeing many more H Bodies as family cars as a kid than I do the FWD C bodies (though the numbers indicate both sold well). Also, I think the Olds and Buick were decent looking, if not up to their predecessors.
I also agree they drove better than most contemporary Bs, because most of those cars were saddled with the 307 which, while nice and smooth, is a mixed experience. Especially if you have to maintain speed up hills. I’ve never driven a 305 car so I can’t compare.
The ’77-’79 Bs with more powerful engines and THM350/400s would make a more interesting comparison to the H-Body in terms of delivering the best virtues of the “big American car” but that comparison is academic because they were not the contemporaries of these, only the neutered Bs were.
One drawback on the Hs (and FWD Cs) is they don’t, as far as I can tell, have the same room across so if you want three across it’s going to be more of a squeeze than in the older cars.
If I were buying new in ’86 it’d be a tough call, every single choice is compromised. The remaining Bs and Cs (Caprice, Parisienne, and Brougham) I would view as the best looking, but they were the slowest and really were allowed to wither on the vine, then the Hs (and FWD Cs) are probably blessed with the best equipment (though not in the early versions, always), the Taurus is the most modern, and the Panthers would probably best combine power, 6 passenger space, soft ride, and towing capacity, but that AOD is anything but smooth.
I’d go with the Panther for overall value or the B for sentimentality.
If I were buying new in 1986 the choice would be very easy. A Pontiac Parisienne Brougham with Chevy 305 and 200R4 transmission complete with rally suspension
and wheels and gauge package of course with no vinyl roof in a beautiful shade of maroon with matching gut.
We had an ’86 Parisienne Brougham. It had the 307. Unless Pontiac simply used whichever engine was lying around (which I doubt but I suppose isn’t impossible) you might be searching a long time for that 305-equipped model!
I’ve also never seen a Parisienne with anything except either the heavy-duty wire wheel covers or the slotted stamped caps. The older Bonnevilles could occasionally be spotted with the rally wheels but I don’t think they were an option after ’83.
Then again, who knows what odd concoctions one may have still been able to special order 30 years ago!
I remember being incredibly impressed by these Buicks at the time (I was 17) and tried to convince my mother to get one. Instead she bought a Ford Taurus wagon. We hadn’t had an american car in the family since a 1975 Jeep Wagoneer, instead we’d had five Mercedes {w115 (1) and w123 (2 sedans, 2 wagons)}, a BMW (533i), a Saab (900 Turbo) and a Volvo 740 Wagon. And yet this LeSabre, especially the T-Type looked modern and exciting. If I remember correctly, Buick did an extended road test before the launch of the LeSabre, driving it 100,000 miles in the outback, and even invited along car magazines. The pictures were cool, and the reviews were very complimentary about the driving impressions.
It may be strange to remember, but in that era, rear-wheel drive seemed to be becoming passe! It wasn’t just the cafe standards and it wasn’t just in the United States. Major car companies around the world seemed to be transitioning from RWD to front wheel drive, including Toyota, Nissan and Mazda, Alfa Romeo and Fiat, Peugeot, VW and later Volvo. And many successful manufacturers had built front wheel drive cars for years, including Saab and Fiat, Citroen and Honda, Subaru and Audi. Except Mercedes, BMW, and Lincoln (and even Lincoln did partially with the Continental in 1988), every major manufacturer seemed to be going to front-wheel drive.
It may not have been true throughout the country, but to my contemporaries and me growing up on the east coast, American cars had become a joke, cars for grandparents. We had no interest in the rear-wheel drive American cars of the 70s that just seemed like big boats. I lusted after the BMW 2002 and VW GTI and Saab Turbo, and this Buick was able to enter that mix and be exciting and attractive and new. I loved it and it was like a breath of fresh air for American cars!
PS, I have a 2009 Cadillac SRX with a longitudinal engine and rear-biased AWD, so don’t call me an American car or RWD hater!
I think the extended test were on the Electra, I had that brochure somewhere in the archives, I remember the photos of the FWD Electras with the big grille guards and fog lights.
Lots of people pan these cars, but it wasn’t like the traditional big BOF car was exactly on the up and and up when these cars were in their design process, 1980-1982 produced some really dismal full size car sales figures, and even when gas prices dropped in the mid 80’s again, some buyers flocked back, but many didn’t. There were lots of people that decided back in the 70’s that they could “make do” with a nice intermediate sized car and they never came back to a “traditional” full size car again.
You’re right, it was the Electra! I guess I never really committed the differences between the Electra and the LeSabre to memory!
I remember because they started promoting the new Electra early in 1984, Buick was the official car of the 1984 Summer Olympics in LA, so there was a lot of marketing material released for these as part of the promotion, there were even a few of these Electras and Riviera convertibles that took part in the “running the torch” across the US.
I had an 86 Electra T-type. It was one of my favorite cars. Although my 2007 SRX (RWD-Awd- V8) was nearer the top of my list. What I do remember about the Electra is that the engine-transaxle were not anchored in place very solidly as downshifts tended to cause a fair amount of commotion. It did have electronic touch climate control, pretty much like my 83 Skyhawk’s.
I always liked these cars. For one thing, they drove a lot better than the B Body since had had an honest to goodness independent rear suspension. On a bumpy mountain road, IRS makes an HUGE difference how a car handles. A B Body will bound, porpoise and weave all over the place in this situation, while an H with IRS will not.
These cars were space efficient, drove well, handled well, rode well and had excellent visibility. They also had, unfortunately, a heavy dose of GM “quality.”
I rode in a few H bodies, usually the Olds version, and don’t recall much impression about them. I was sort of inherently disappointed in them and didn’t pay them much heed. As a family, we quickly moved from GM B to Ford Panther until about 1995.
From the comments I’ve seen over time on CC regarding the H, it seems that GM’s third try at mainstreaming front drive into its core lines was reasonably successful – the X car debacle was behind them, the diesels and some other crap on the early A’s never made an appearance here, and the 3.8 that had been refined over the years made a successful transition to FWD.
But, sales of these were not particularly strong, the Sloane ladder took another hit as the LARGER RWD cars were now mostly at Chevrolet and Pontiac. That was a mess by any standard.
The styling issues that Lincoln used to successfully beat on GM were quite terrible. The basic profile of these cars is a slightly softened box with what amounts to minor indentations in the metal passing as divisional differences. Those indentations made a busy base on which a lot of fussy trim was added. The black linings behind the wheel lip mouldings, the front parking lights with their top shape cut off by the black bumper rub strip, the side mouldings that vary slightly from the rear quarter extensions. All attempts to make is seem a bit more modern, but they just made it messy and a bit odd.
FWIIW, the vinyl top has a good chance of being aftermarket. Vinyl was starting to disappear on these and I believe that the factory top trim on the B pillar was a bit better than what is seen here.
These cars have always been ugly and boring to me. About as bland as a car can get IMO.
I have to say I like these cars. My Aunt Candy’s last car was a 1986 Park Avenue in the same colors as today’s CC. I drove it many times and despite a very comfortable, soft ride it still handled and cornered respectably. It was really nice. She actually still has the car, but she stopped driving about ten years ago, so it just sits in the garage.
I’m with you. Very underrated; impressively isolated, but still able to handle (reasonably) well. I
Hey Perry I have a treat for you my name is James and I have a 1990 Buick LeSabre Limited with 35,000 miles on it. What do you think
These are the cars of my childhood (I was 15 when this car appeared.) They were accepted very well in the conservative farm communities where I grew up. It was GM sedan territory, and the folks who bought them to replace their older B bodies were happy with them (at least the 1988 and newer models, which was when GM got the powertrain sorted out.) But it’s typical ’80s-’90s GM. The cars keep running but the body and electrical fall apart around the engine after a decade, exactly like the subject car of this article.
I always figured I’d have one someday – closest I ever got was an ’86 98 (disposed of because of the reliability issues) and an ’89 Riviera, which was a tremendously pleasant and reliable car that I kept until I’d run it up over 200K miles.
I remember the “downsized” era at GM. These cars were upsized in the early 1990’s and late 1980’s because GM went too small and they were not distinctive enough. GM started working on theses cars in the late 1970’s. Some of them sold well, but the problem was the C and H Bodies looked like the midsized A Bodies and the E and K Bodies looked like the N Bodies. The large cars looked like cheaper smaller cars. Roger Smith’s GM changes and organizational re groupings also hurt these cars because the brands no longer controlled how their cars were being built. The divisional brand differences were lost during this time. Pontiac did the most with making the Bonneville different. The thing that was funny to me was the Bonneville at one time was the largest C or H Body for a time too.
I do not know why they put those old fashioned exterior door handles on all these cars. That was an odd feature too. The trunks were too small and they looked “truncated” The E Bodies were the most obvious with the chopped off look. The front bumpers stuck out and did not look crash worthy either.
I do think Buick put the most effort in these designs. Toronado was the most daring. The Bonneville made the most of the design. Buick LeSabre -1990 wore it well. The ones that wore it poorly were the Buick Riviera and Cadillac Deville/ Fleetwood.
I hated the downsize era. I was glad they upsized these cars too. I do own the upsized version of the Oldsmobile Ninety Eight and the Toronado. They did what they should have done in the 1980’s with these cars in the early 1990’s. There are a lot of improvements.
The funny thing what they consider midsized and large in 2014 is the same size as these cars were in the 1980’s.
If I had to take any of these downsized cars it would be:
The Pontiac Bonneville and the Oldsmobile Ninety Eight/ Touring Sedan.
I figured Chevrolet had a version. I now know it was Lumina.
I always thought that the Chevrolet Lumina which replaced both the Celebrity and the RWD A/G-Bodied Monte Carlo as Chevy’s answer to the same FWD W-Bodies GM had offered at the same time as well to other divisional Cousins like the Pontiac Grand Prix, Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme and Buick Regal. I would never have thought that it was Chevrolet’s answer to the FWD H-Bodies like the Pontiac Bonneville, Oldsmobile Delta 88 and Buick Le Sabre. The RWD BOF B-Bodies continued on through 1997 with the likes of the Chevrolet Caprice until it was replaced along with the FWD W-Bodied Chevrolet Lumina with the also FWD redesigned W-Bodied aka the Chevrolet Impala in 2000.
It became a W-body car after it was pulled off the shelf and dusted off, the Lumina was introduced in 1990 and it was the largest W-body, bigger than the BOP counterparts, due to its H-body original intentions.
Very Interesting Insight. THX.
Last car the folks owned was A 93 LeSabre in the same light blue as the pictured car in this story. I drove them quite a bit, a couple of times from Vancouver Wa. to Bainbridge Island. Really a nice driving, comfortable car with impressive power for a 6 cylinder. They kept it garaged in pristine condition. It did have it’s share of mechanical issues. The 3800 engine gave no problems at all except for leaky valve cover gaskets. But the transmission failed at around 75k miles, and at about 125k miles, shortly before I had to take the keys away, the AC compressor failed and they spent about $1500.00 have the AC redone. It also had a fuel pump problem if it was below about 1/2 a tank it would die going up hill. They never fixed that, and when my niece was driving it (she puts $5.00 a week into the tank, and to her a full tank is the needle slightly above the red, so after the second phone call that the car died and it had plenty of gas in it, (yeah right), my brother bought it and took it to California. It got almost 30 MPG on the hwy, and low to mid 20’s around town. Impressive. The interior was still in perfect condition in 2008, the only 2 things I replaced was the drivers sunvisor and the glove box latch, The original paint was still pretty good. Dad drove it about a year too long, so at the end all four corners were bashed in along with the rear door and passenger mirror. He did get to drive it once more in 2010 when I was unable to take him to a radiation treatment and asked my niece to take him. I warned her he would try to drive and do not let him, but he convinced her it was OK and scared the shit out of her and everyone unlucky enough to share the road with him from Vancouver to Portland. Needless to say, she drove him back.
I rarely chime in on these articles but, I thought I would on this one. Being an aficionado on these, I have come to appreciate them. I have owned a 1989 Lesabre Limited two door that was near flawless and I still would have had today if an idiot had not run a stop light and hit me. I owned that car from 2008-2010 and now I have a 1991 Lesabre 4 door sedan Limited (2010-Now). These are really fantastic cars. I drive mine daily and typically get around 25-30 hwy, and city about 19. My current Lesabre has 159,000 on it and still going strong. I just had it repainted last year and all it is in great shape. I have replaced all of the parts you typically would on a 23 year old car (hoses, belts, brakes, general maintenance items). I am really very happy with my purchase all those years ago.
For my sister’s first car I found a 1989 Electra Park Avenue just down the street from me, and bought it for $800.00 it too is a great car and she loves it. Both the Lesabre and the Park Avenue were purchased from estates that had no idea what to do with them! I am a big fan of these cars and they are becoming more and more rare to find one in nice shape. However, I would only buy one with the 3800 (1988-up). My friend had a 98 regency from 1986 and that 3.8 did not run near as nice as my 3800’s. You NEVER want to buy the first year or two of production on any brand or car. They are still trying to work out the kinks. By 1989-1991 these cars were well known and respected for quality, they have a classic design but, are modern and good enough on gas to drive today. The parts are cheap and plentiful. As far as the interior plastic, I have never had a problem on any of them with the interior plastic. I don’t know why everyone has jumped on that bandwagon! Recently, I was sad because I could not find one of these for a friend of mine who was looking for a car. I did find him a nice W body 1991 Buick Regal with a 3.1 that runs great. Those I am seeing around often now. I saw 10 yesterday, I think as the Lesabres from this era age we are seeing less and less. Also the model year ended at 1991 whereas the W-body Buick ended at 1996.
These are getting tougher to find, though there are 4 boxy style Park Avenues on ebay right now, including a low mile California 1985 model. Funny thing is that there are no equivalent boxy FWD LeSabres, It seems those are becoming a hard to find commodity due to their reputation for durability.
1988 -1991 are this and it’s Electra/88/98/Bonneville’s best years hands down. The 440/4T60 trans axle was improved quite a bit, the rack issues were mostly resolved and the electrical components were better executed. We still get these cars in at our used southern dealership in upstate, NY and actually have not only repeat customers but also buyers looking for cars for there kids to go to college etc. The visibility would flat out embarrass a LaCrosse or 300 and I find it ironic that these cars have about the same interior legroom as larger and much heavier cars today. An example would be the current LaCrosse which weights close to 4000 LBS compared to this car which weights around 3300 LBS in base trim despite being close in overall length. The safety features, gadgets and tech sure do add a lot of weight!
The cars from the mid-1970s through the early-1990s which were in the 3300 pound weight class along with having identical measurements of around 16 feet in length such as the: 1975-79 RWD X-Bodied Buick Apollo/Skylark, the 1980-87 RWD A/G-Bodied Buick Century/Regal and the 1986-91 FWD H-Bodied Buick Le Sabre’s closest kin, the 1985-90 FWD C-Bodied Buick Electra were significantly lighter compared to the current Buick LaCrosse, Chevrolet Impala and other similar sized cars of today because safety features like steel cage construction, heavier engines and larger tires contribute to these equally sized aforementioned cars weighing much more than their past peers some almost close to 1000 pounds heavier.
Love it. The bench seat up front reminds me of my high school rig, the ’86 Celebrity.
I think the only real problem with these cars was that, like so many other GM efforts from the time, they tried way too hard to force “traditional” styling cues onto them. It’s no coincidence that the best looking models, the LeSabre/Delta 88 coupes and the Pontiac Bonneville, were also the most thoroughly modern looking. All of which is not to say that I think this is actually a bad looking car, just a very compromised looking car.
Otherwise? Great cars. Bulletproof drivetrain, smooth ride, adequate handling, and I can’t say I agree on the build quality being especially poor. Falling headliners and missing exterior trim, yes… some brittle plastics, certainly… but rattling dashboards and disintegrating seats? Never noticed that, except on the hardcore beaters like this one, and I’ve been in a decent number of them. So they weren’t great, but they were still probably the best-built cars from GM during the entire decade, and average overall.
I’m sure it never would have made sense to Detroit, but you know what makes a lot of sense to me? If these had actually been a replacement for the B-O-P A-body rather than existing in a weird sort of limbo between them and the “real” fullsize RWD cars. Whatever virtues the Century/Ciera had, no one took them seriously as a premium midsize car by 1985, which is what they were supposed to be. Shifting everything down a rung (and eliminating the slow selling Buick/Olds J-cars) would have made them all so much more appealing.
The only thing I never liked about these was exterior size. Sure the interiors were roomy and they had very good drivetrains but they just didn’t have presence. 18 or so more inches in length would have helped quite a bit. When I was a kid I used to confuse the 86 and up LeSabre and Park Avenue with the Century because they were similar in external size. They fixed the problem with the second generation cars. The first gen H bodies always looked like midsize cars to me, even though they are really full size cars.
I was the car washer/all around grunt at a couple of funeral homes in the 1980s and the company had about 10 of these as lead cars for the funeral directors to drive…they ran pretty strong, seemed “modern” compared to the old RWD cars they replaced, and had really nice base coat/clear coat white paint on them that took wax really well. Nice cars all around.
I did the same job a few years earlier than you did, but in Fort Wayne. All of my experience was in the generation (or two) prior to these, including a 77 LeSabre with a the V6.
Lord have mercy, my parents had friends whose 75? Colonnade Century had a V6 and I remember them complaining about how gutless it was. My dad made a point of getting a 350 in his 76 Cutlass S.
I will tell you that 6 door limousines and funeral coaches have a lot of area to wax…even with vinyl tops they are BIG cars.
Yes, that V6 77 LeSabre was excruciating to drive, and I avoided that one like the plague whenever I had a choice. By contrast, the 77 Cad Fleetwood with the 425 was my car of choice.
Fortunately, I never had to wax the funeral coaches. They had four, all silver with black vinyl. They turned over 2 every year, and I don’t think they were ever waxed. They did, however, get a near daily trip through a car wash. The silver lacquer paint on the GM cars did not stand up well to the frequent trips through the automatic car wash. Even the old black 71 Fleetwood 75 limo was looking pretty sad by the time it was replaced. The Lincolns with enamel held up to the washes much better.
We had mainly all white cars with white vinyl tops on the coaches and limousines…that was fun to try to keep clean. The six door RWD Buick LeSabre limousines were cheesy…one even had manual windows and locks…elcheapo. The coaches were on 3 year leases, the limo’s were on 5 year leases.
Every time the company bought a funeral home, we had to incorporate their livery into the fleet, temporarily, until they could be disposed of and replaced with white on white cars…so we had charcoal gray with black top, steel blue with blue top, and a horrible maroon over maroon Buick coach that was a turd.
I do miss the days when funeral homes had distinctive livery…Kutis gold, Kriegshauser blue, Hoffmeister jewel tone coaches, etc. You could tell whose procession it was, from a long way away. Now, everybody seems to have black livery. Boring.
I’ll bet you got good at backing up using nothing but your two outside mirrors. I know I did.
Oh yeah, and take wide turns with the longer cars so you don’t crunch the middle doors on posts and pillars and whatnot. We had several of the limousines get the sides skinned up by drivers who cut corners too close. I also learned how much film builds up on the inside of auto glass when the funeral director who drives it is a chain-smoker of cigars.
I’ve got an 88 Lesabre in white, 115k miles on it right now. Sure, i’ve put some money into it but overall it’s been such a reliable car. The 3800 v6 is a solid engine and despite being almost 30 years it, it gets close to 28 MPG on the highway. I love the classic styling cues, in a sea of plastic hondas and toyotas it really stands out in my college parking lot. I want to mention that yes, some of the plastic interior elements have fallen off (nothing I couldn’t fix with a little super glue), but my appaulstry has not a single rip or tear in it. I couldn’t ask for a more comfortable ride. It’s like driving the worn-in sofa that you forgot was in your basement.
I’ve owned 3 of these beauties, an ’88 T-Type, an ’86 Limited coupe and an ’86 LeSabre Grand National. The only problem I had with all 3 cars was the THM440-T4 transaxle. The ’88 wouldn’t go into 2nd if you floored it at about 187k, the Limited lost all forward motion at 70k (it had been sitting for about 10 years. The Grand National has 240k and the pump is howling like a banshee. Otherwise the build quality is far better than most others from that time frame.
It was the shimmying and shaking of the dash and the never-ending twisting that made me feel that these cars weren’t made solidly. The fit and finish was poor. The packaging was good. The styling was good. The problem was that these cars didn’t have the solidity found on more inexpensive cars. Sure, they sold well. Yes it had a quiet ride. However, compared to the 1980 Park Avenue I was familiar with, this generation was a lightweight.
My dad had an ’86. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen one with those one-year-only sealed beam headlights. I see later ones occasionally. It was a remarkably competent car, even at things that don’t always go together. It was roomy inside but tidy outside. It rode nicely but handled much better than you might expect. It had good acceleration, but got shockingly good fuel economy for the times.
At my old company, we had an executive who was transferred in to Toronto, from Arizona. Rather than have his car (one of these featured LeSabres) transported, he drove it up. He was quite proud that his desert car made it all the way, and survived the winters in Canada, all except the windshield wipers, as he claimed. I would have thought a freshening of anti freeze might have been warranted, but nonetheless, that Buick soldiered on through the white stuff, for a few years.
I wonder what GM’s “Plan A” would’ve been for Chevy and wagon versions of the H-Body had gas prices not fallen to a level where keeping the old 1977 Bs in production could happen. Were they planned at all or were the A-bodies going to be the biggest Chevys and wagons?
What surprised me when I first saw these is how little differentiation there was between the LeSabre and the FWD C body Electra/Park Avenue that debuted a year and a half earlier. As long as I could remember, the Electra and Olds 98 were stretched and plushed-up variations of the LeSabre and 88. The formula stayed the same for decades – the Electra/98 had an extra three inches of wheelbase, with wider rear doors to accommodate the extra length. The roof would be slightly higher for extra headroom. The pillar and rear glass were more upright for a formal appearance. There would be a few extra inches of rear overhang too, which allowed for extra luggage room. As long as they were mucking with the rear sheetmetal, might as well give the C bodies distinct rear styling compared to the less-expensive B bodies. Inside, the C body cars had huge full-length armrests on the doors with a multitude of switches and buttons, fancier seats, but the same dashboard.
But this all changed in 1986. Suddenly, the LeSabre was the same size as the Electra, with the same wheelbase, same rear door lower sections, nearly the same rear styling. More of the same inside, where the LeSabre got full-length armrests on the front doors and loose-cushion seats that weren’t that different than the Electra’s. What exactly was the difference between these two cars? The only obvious thing is a slightly more sloped C pillar and different rear glass and door frames to accommodate it. The sloped glass forced the rear seatback to be more upright and uncomfortable on the LeSabre though.
The only one of these I ever drove was a loaner that was provided when our 1987 Mercury Sable was in the shop for warranty work. It felt like stepping back twelve or fifteen years, yet it was a Buick LeSabre only a year older.
And yes mom always left some makeup stains on the visor (vanity mirror)…..Those were the days!