(first posted 9/16/2012) I’m well aware of the Church of the B-body. I understand that for a lot of people, there’s no other way to make your average American sedan other than an overhead valve V8 mated to a driveshaft driving the rear wheels. And I’m here to offer the counter defense that you are far better off in rain, sleet or snow and at the gas pump if you embrace the H-body.
Although the 1977 B-bodies were downsized, they weren’t (overall length-wise) all that much smaller than the 1961-64 B-body cars. Although they were more rational than what proceeded them, They were not much more than the Cutlass Supreme across the lot in a crisply tailored pair of bell bottoms. Flash forward to the early 1980s. New CAFE Standards, threats of $3.00 a gallon gas, and tanking sales of the B-bodies? What is General Motors to do?
Get a little overzealous with the engineering and the blowtorch, that’s what. Just in time for gas prices to ease. Although the FWD C bodies first went out the door to meet the disaster, the former B-bodies became Wagon only, and their sedan and coupe nameplate mates became the “H” Bodies. Nearly 2 feet shorter than they had been, once again playing that awkward showroom game of having “mid sized” Cutlasses actually being slightly larger (and cheaper). Add in the fact that the Cutlasses still had a V8… and… we can see where some of the backlash became legitimate. “You want me to pay more for ‘less?’ Show me that Cutlass Supreme with a ‘real’ rocket.”
If General Motors had any real ego left, the Cutlass Supreme would have disappeared/been rebadged as the new aero-back Cutlass Ciera Coupe in 1986 to make room for the new Eighty Eight. But GM was too willing to milk the cash cow. Or another solution would have been to forget developing the GM-10 W-body cars and pump redevelopment money back into the B-bodies for all of the customers that were crying foul and reintroduce “proper” DeVilles, Electras and Ninety Eights for 1991.
General Motors reportedly spent 3 Billion dollars on the H-Body cars, about the same amount of money Ford spent on the Taurus/Sable. But the perception of the two platforms couldn’t be more different. The Taurus is still lauded as a milestone Ford. Meanwhile everyone, GM included was confused on what exactly to do with the H-body cars (at least the first generation cars). All the more amazing considering that in a few key configurations they were remarkably similar. Space efficient, peppy, aerodynamic and economical.
Maybe they lost the plot with the styling? Although the sedans are bores next to the Taurus, the coupes turned out to be the best lookers of the whole C/E/H/K downsize debacle. But there is that infamous Newsweek(?) cover story of the four Front Wheel Drive A-bodies in red lined up next to each other, and only a true car buff could tell them apart. You could accuse the various C & H bodies of having the same problem. At least on the old B-bodies the Buick had that goofy shovel nose going on to tell them apart from the rest.
The proposition of paying more for “less” car also turned off a lot of buyers, in the same way the awkwardly styled 1962 Plymouth and Dodges didn’t help their case with the almost equivalent sticker prices to the much visibly larger 1961 models. But there was more content available: Rack & Pinion steering for better maneuverability, efficient and ever increasingly strong versions of the 3.8L Buick V6, which would morph by 1988 into the legendary 3800. You were able to go further with your gallon of regular… and maybe I should get to why I’m hyping and praising such an unloved General Motors car.
Roundabouts January 2004, after I had gotten the money from the totaled out LHS, I decided to make myself an Oldsmobile Man again. My father had a pretty good relationship with his 1995 Eighty Eight, and remember all of the advertising from my youth on how the equivalent Le Sabre kept getting J.D. Power and Associates awards, starting around 1989 or so.
So off the the magical land of Craigslist I went. Within my budget I found a 1991 Eighty Eight Royale Brougham in the same shade of Maroon as the above car, but with tan leather and all the options save the digital gauge cluster and astroroof moonroof. Owned by a Lithuanian Doctor with a stack of maintenance records I couldn’t wait to hand over the $800. My favorite option? The FE3 Suspension that meant I wasn’t purchasing one of the wallowing versions of the H body platform.
My car being the best of the original H body breed, I didn’t have to worry about frying a 440-T4 automatic (which seem to have a higher failure rate compared to the 4T60 version of the transmission). The handling was remarkably adept for your average family sedan. In fair comparison, the base suspension of any C or H body car is barely any better than the B-bodies they replaced when it comes to aquatic body motions. My dads base suspension LS is remarkably floaty.
And I don’t know if I can praise enough the high 20’s MPG I achieved under my lead foot with the 3800 V6. 165 horsepower feels remarkably strong when paired with 210lbs/ft of torque, a 3,500 pound curb weight and a pretty well geared transmission. I got my one and only speeding ticket of 96mph in this Oldsmobile. The CHP officer was so furious at me that he forgot to write down how fast I was going.
Along the thread that “Florence” was a tireless performer, it’s the car that survived my lean college years with plenty of neglect. I bought her with 197,000 miles on the odometer. I sold her to a cousin 2 years later for $350 with 246,000 miles. In that period of mileage, I performed 4 oil changes, 1 brake job for each end and one swap of spark plugs as a quasi tune up. My cousin dumped another $400 in her and had a car that lasted to 285,000 miles before the signs of my neglect became too impossible to ignore.
It’s the one car I wish I had never parted with. But I could not resist the rite of post collegiate “I scored my first job!” euphoria and purchased a 1998 Volkswagen Jetta GLX VR6. As I hear the collective groan of the readers, sometimes you can be convinced to put little to no money down on a used car because of an engine note, a sunroof and red paint. If someone doesn’t get to it first, I’ll tell that story someday.
But there’s plenty of proof that General Motors got something right with the H bodies, each time I see them on the street 25 years later. Some look like survivors from nuclear fall out, some looking painfully overstuffed on 22 inch rims and then another set perfectly preserved. Controversial they might be, but they are thankless survivors from a collapse of a corporate giant.
As good as the Olds & Buick FWDs were, from the late 80s through the mid-to-late 90s, there is still some reason to prefer RWD. I confess that I was impressed over my wife’s ’96 Park Avenue.. which would have lasted more than the 20 years it did.. were it not for a yo-yo t-boning it.. with an Audi.
Yet my ’89 Caprice got just as good gas mileage as her ’96 FWD: both averaged in the low 20s.
I’ve only driven or been in one of these a couple of times, and long ago, but at the time it seemed they did so much right. So roomy, so comfortable, good mpg, and it seemed the ultimate evolution of the sheer/boxy/efficient look which still looked modern to me back when that was something I liked. And the hood opened BACKWARDS which was so cool to me by itself.
Alloy wheels were essential though, as I saw spoked hubcaps and whitewalls as old-fashioned and at odds with the smooth modern lines. (Today I’m okay with them because it’s all old-fashioned now and I can group the styles together)
My neighbor had an ’88 with the 3800 engine well into the 2010s and I helped him work on it once. It wasn’t so bad under the hood. Everything accessible and logically placed. No bloody knuckles or anything. Much easier than my newer cars, anyway.
So to me these cars are hard to fault as family haulers/daily drivers.
All I would change is the dash. It functioned well enough, but to it’s credit the Taurus changed my thoughts on “flat” GM dashes forever.
Before I forget, the visibility from inside these cars deserve a special shout-out. Superb!
You know, up to a few minutes ago I thought there was nothing wrong with the design of these cars. Form-follows-function is one of my sincerely-held religious beefs, and I generally like boxes rather than jellybeans; wedges, or alien insects with anger-management issues. And the function-forward design of this H-body 88 extends beyond just roomy boxes and good sightlines; we’ve also got large tail lights with—glory be!—real turn signals. I dig the grab-hold-and-punch-the-button door handles, too.
But then I saw this picture. Gack! No! The top few inches of the trailing edge of the door wants; needs, and begs to be a straight vertical line continuing that of the bottom couple inches of the trailing edge of the windowframe. That rearward scallop effect at the top-rear of the doorframe is plain and flatly incorrect.
Not surprised. If any car maker was going to to do this. I’d guess The General every time. Generally speaking, whenever I looked at Delta 88s from this era, I saw them as the Cimarron Fleetwood edition.
“Cimarron Fleetwood” FTW! »chuckle«
Yeah, this kind of slackassed design malpractice was a hallmark of the Irv Rybicki era at GM. Others, too, but at the moment I’m slagging Rybicki because he deserves it again.
The door sheet metal looks like it’s shared with the 98, which actually has a forward lean to the window frame/C pillar, but no mini-kink like the 88. It’s just bolt upright in our imagination.
Had the Buick LeSabre version of this car, only in a lighter color. All around decent car. Ignition switch issues that I think led to timing chain failure prior to 100K. Stalling out at low speed and then starting to run again. Transverse engine made it too expensive to repair. On a RWD, I would have done the job myself. Will RWD ever come back? Love the color on the one in this post.
Er-ruhhh…awright, I’ll bite: what kind of ignition switch issues cause timing chain failure?
Good question. What would happen is the ignition would sometimes cut out when driving at speeds under 30 Mph. Often it would come back on with a jolt. Dealer never figured it out. Happened often enough so I figure it wasn’t doing the chain any good. There were also several design changes on these cars related to the timing chain. Most likely a combination of factors. Didn’t have a code reader at the time. Thought I had retired from ignition work. Finally figured it out myself. Got it going O.K. Chain failed later. The sprocket was really chewed up though.
When you say “ignition would sometimes cut out”, do you mean the engine would stall, but “often begin running again with a jolt”? I’d be leaning towards a crank sensor issue, rather than ignition switch. The term “ignition switch” is actually a poor misnomer, as the mechanical switch activated by the “ignition key” would be better labeled as a starter switch that also provides power to the ignition system, which in this case is governed by the PCM and an ignition module below the coil packs. Another feature of GM vehicles if I correctly recall, was that the PCM had an input from the oil pressure sensor that could disable the fuel pump if the oil pressure went to zero. I believe the intent of this was as a safety feature in the event of a crash, shut the fuel pump off to prevent the electric pump from spraying fuel out of ruptured fuel lines (that would have stalled the engine). Fords used an inertia switch for this purpose.
My father had an ’87 Delta 88 for many years. I’m not sure of the trim level. From new to about 2001. I believe he took it to about 160k miles. It still ran well when he sold it. It was certainly the most reliable car that he ever had. I drove it now and then, including on an 1800-mile fishing trip in the 90’s. Although the 88 was heavily loaded, it returned tank after tank of 28 mpg fuel economy, highway.
I can’t recall any notable repairs he ever suffered. A new set of upgraded struts well along the way and some fuel injectors. The trans never failed. The engine was a version of the 3.8 that I believe is sometimes called the “series 1 -3800”. A roller cam valvetrain and MPFI and a one-piece intake. A new ’92 Buick LeSabre with 3800 he added along the way was, in comparison, a horrific example of constant failure and repair.
Still own two LeSabres, a 2000 (147K miles) and a 2001 (41K miles). GM certainly got a lot right with these cars.
A relative of mine bought a burgundy 1986 Olds 88 new and it was constantly in the shop with issues…..It went through 3 transmissions in the time he owned it and somehow it made it to 150,000 miles.
He swore off GM and traded it in for a new 1993 Toyota Camry which he drove to 220,000 miles with nothing more than routine maintenance.
My father’s last car was an ’88 Olds 98 Regency sedan. He loved how it drove (as a salesman, he spent many hours on the road), but…
At 48K the transmission failed, and at 75K the engine blew. He never forgave GM for that lemon.
After he passed away, we traded in the Olds and my mother’s ’84 Chrysler New Yorker (she always got his hand-me down-car when he got a new ride; that Chrysler was a slug and a story in it’s own right) on a new ’92 Toyota Camry for our mother. The Camry was a revelation compared to the American cars. Solid, reliable, and well-built. She had until she passed away in 2009.
We sold it with <60K on the clock to the lucky guy who responded to the for-sale ad. Still ran like a clock.
“They were not much more than the Cutlass Supreme across the lot in a crisply tailored pair of bell bottoms. ”
Careful.
I got taken behind the woodshed when I suggested that the “All-New” “Downsized” ’77 B-bodies were not much more than Mid-’70s A-bodies with a revised body structure.
The H bodies were great cars and very durable. It is interesting to note my comment of eleven years ago, that they were loads of these cars on the road.
Not anymore. They have all but disappeared.
1a673: ” The C always had about a 3″ wheelbase stretch, another 3″ added to the rear overhang, wider rear doors and a more formal roofline.” That distinction between the C and B bodies (now H) should have been kept- at all costs. Maybe reduce the stretch/overhang to 2″. This would eventually lead to the Lucerne and the unfortunate complete blurring of LeSabre/Park Avenue, 88/98.
The C-body Caddy sedans did get a 3″ WB stretch for 1989, but extending (no pun intended) that to the Ninety-Eight and Electra/Park Ave would’ve helped too, particularly when the newer models came out with more overhang.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classics-1989-cadillac-coupe-de-ville-and-1990-cadillac-sedan-de-ville-better-as-time-goes-by/
What is that emblem above the Royale Brougham lettering on the side of the car?