(first posted 3/9/2017) Of all GM’s downsized full-sized cars for 1977, arguably the most surprising one came from Buick. That’s right, the blue-chip purveyor of premium family cars let loose a LeSabre 2-door replete with impressive handling capabilities for a big domestic coupe. Car and Driver couldn’t pass up the opportunity to test drive an unexpected entry from Flint.
To be fair to Buick, the LeSabre Sport Coupe was not the first time the division had launched performance-oriented variants for some of its popular products. In the mid-1960s for example, Buick introduced the Gran Sport package for the Riviera and the Skylark, the former bringing added handling finesse to the personal luxury class, while the latter represented Buick’s entry in the muscle car wars.
Even among the conventional B-Body cars, Buick served up a Gran Sport version of the Wildcat 2-door Hardtop and Convertible for 1966, though it was just a one-year wonder. After all, even in the mid-1960s the market for full-sized family cars with sporty pretensions was not that large…
The Gran Sport continued to be available, either as individual models or as a trim package on the mid-sized Skylark/Century line into the 1970s. As befitting Buick’s take on performance, most of these “muscle cars” were typically skewed toward luxury and style, all the better to appeal to a more refined (read mature) audience. Let Chevy and Plymouth chase the kids with outrageous muscle machines—most Gran Sports (GSX models excepted) were for buyers seeking more flair and capability than the typical midsize Buick, but please—nothing too wild!
Likewise, the Riviera Gran Sport option brought minor cosmetic, performance and handling upgrades to Buick’s flagship coupes. The Riviera GS models were subtle nods toward sportiness, primarily targeting buyers who wanted their personal luxury car loaded with all the the “goodies,” and if that meant a few performance-oriented enhancements, so be it.
However, as the 1970s domestic makers made their way into the heart of the Great Brougham Epoch, sales shifted toward the luxury models and interest in anything sporty waned, especially at a conservative division like Buick. For the ’76 model year, the Gran Sport package was no longer on offer for any Buick—seemingly the end of an era…
Or not.
The spirit of the Gran Sport reappeared in the most unlikely place for 1977: Buick’s full-sized family car line—the LeSabre—received performance-oriented tweaks to create the new Sport Coupe. Using the luxury-oriented LeSabre Custom Coupe as a starting point, the LeSabre Sport Coupe added handling enhancements including stiffer springs and shocks, thicker front stabilizer bar along with a rear stabilizer bar and faster ratio power steering (3.13 wheel turns versus 3.37 on other LeSabre models). Also, unlike the rest of the ’77 LeSabre line which featured a standard 3.8 Liter V6, the Sport Coupe came standard with a V8, either the Pontiac-made 5.0 Liter (standard in 49 states) or the Buick-built 5.7 Liter (standard in California, optional elsewhere). The Oldsmobile-built 6.6 Liter V8 was also available as the top engine option. Turns out that the V8 engines were a one-year-only offering for the LeSabre Sport Coupe, as the 3.8 Liter Turbo V6 would become the only engine choice for that model beginning in 1978.
Externally, most moldings that were chrome on the LeSabre Custom Coupe were given the blackout treatment for the Sport Coupe. Of course, buyers of either coupe could add more moldings, like protective body-side trim and door edge guards—parking lot protectors that doubled as profit extenders for GM!
Inside, however, the LeSabre Sport Coupe featured virtually identical trim to its Custom sister. The standard notchback bench seat could be had in crushed velour or vinyl (a 60/40 split bench was optional), with plenty of fake wood trim, a column shifted automatic and silver-faced dials that only provided minimal instrumentation. Really the only interior variation between the two cars was the steering wheel: a 3-spoke “sport” wheel was standard on the Sport Coupe.
However, the real magic of the LeSabre Sport Coupe was in how it drove. For that assessment, the editors of Car and Driver spent some extended time with the “sporty” big Buick and reported their findings in the May 1977 issue.
While Road Test Magazine can be critiqued for content and editorial errors, Car and Driver was not immune to publishing incorrect data either. For example, C&D mentions that the larger brakes from the Electra were standard on the LeSabre Sport Coupe, but Buick’s own 1977 Dealer Sales Manual does not mention that fact, listing the Sport Coupe brakes as being the same as regular LeSabre models (though all other variances are noted). Among B-Body Buicks, only the newly downsized Riviera did in fact get the larger Electra brakes (along with a 4-wheel disc brake option), but not the LeSabre Sport Coupe. Perhaps the engineering mule C&D tested was uniquely equipped—and no doubt the engineers would have liked a LeSabre Sport Coupe with better brakes. But production LeSabre Sport Coupes apparently did not have them, at least according to factory literature issued directly from GM.
Another C&D factual error concerned color choices, which Car and Driver noted were limited to just 5 shades. In reality, according to Buick literature, every exterior color available for the LeSabre could also be had on the Sport Coupe (14 in all), along with any color vinyl top (there were 7 vinyl top selections, not 5). So buyers in 1977 could in fact have gotten a LeSabre Sport Coupe in a rainbow array of colors with a contrasting roof treatment if desired. Buick even promoted such a car—go look at the press photos shown earlier in this post: sure looks like that LeSabre Sport Coupe, featured by Buick PR for the long lead press, had a contrasting color half vinyl top.
As usual, the Counterpoints offered a quick, accurate assessment of the LeSabre Sport Coupe. In spite of the editors loving the notion of a domestic car with excellent handling capabilities, the truth was that the Sport Coupe was still very much a traditional big Buick (over 18 feet long, even after being downsized) with styling and interior trim that didn’t really speak to enthusiast buyers.
Ah yes, that interior. Few import intenders would have swung open the long, heavy door of the LeSabre Sport Coupe, gazed at the crushed velour interior and shiny trim, and been tempted to try the car out. Likewise, the typical Buick customer wouldn’t have appreciated the merits of the Sport Coupe over the LeSabre Custom—especially given how similar the cars looked inside, and would conceivably have been perplexed by the sharper handling intruding on the traditional “boulevard ride.”
Plus, there was the issue of price. At $8,003 as equipped ($32,070 adjusted), the LeSabre Sport Coupe wasn’t a bad buy, but a loaded LeSabre Custom Coupe sold for approximately $500 less (~$2,000 adjusted). For the average Buick buyer, better handling and blackout trim simply wouldn’t have been worth the extra cost. As a cheaper Gran Sport package add-on, perhaps the idea of a sportier LeSabre might have made some sense, but a pricey stand-alone model was a tougher sell.
So how about sales? Well, it is actually a challenge to calculate the total number of 1977 LeSabre Sport Coupes that Buick produced. The only year Buick directly released sales numbers for the Sport Coupe was 1979, when Buick sold 3,582 of the sportiest LeSabre. As such, the Sport Coupe represented 7% of ’79 LeSabre Coupe sales, with the base 2-door accounting for 15% of sales while the posh Limited (which replaced the Custom for 1979 as the luxury trim) accounted for the lions share—some 78% of coupes were so equipped.
Using 7% of total LeSabre 2-door sales as a guide, the production of Sport Coupes for 1977 could be estimated at 4,693 units (out of 67,044 total 2-doors). Keep in mind, however, that most LeSabres sold were 4-doors (19,827 base and 103,855 Customs for ’77), so in reality the Sport Coupe probably amounted to a scant 2% of total LeSabre output, give or take.
Likely one of the biggest challenges for the LeSabre Sport Coupe was the imagery associated with the regular LeSabre line. Buick had firmly established the LeSabre as the quintessential upscale family car. In the 1977 Buick brochure, the opening spread for the newly-downsized LeSabre predominately featured the 4-door with visuals and copy touting the car’s credentials as a full-sized family sedan. One funny note on this brochure shot: the family featured in the picture has mom and dad along with five kids—kind of a problem for the 6-passenger LeSabre sedan! Did the kids take turns riding in the trunk? Did mom stay home with a Calgon Bath to “take her away”? Was there an Estate Wagon parked nearby while the LeSabre was just dad’s commuter car?
Even the 1979 LeSabre Sport Coupe, with the turbocharged 3.8 V6, was pictured as a kid hauler—hardly enticing bait for performance-seeking buyers potentially tempted by a Turbo…
Soon enough, the ill-fated attempt to inject “sport” into the heart of Buick’s premium American family car segment would be gone. The turbocharged LeSabre Sport Coupe model bowed out after the 1980 model year. For 1981, Buick dipped their toe into new nomenclature, with the T-Type badge being applied to an option package for the LeSabre Coupe. The T-Type package consisted of “sporty” appearance items and bucket seats along with a “Gran Sport” suspension. Under hood, there was nothing more than the regular, rather tame LeSabre engine offerings (3.8L V6, 4.1L V6, 5.0L V8 and 5.7L Diesel V8). No details can be found on production for the LeSabre T-Type package, but it was gone for 1982 while Customs and Limiteds lived on. So it was rather fitting that these cowpokes would ride off into the sunset with the one-year-only T-Type option. Not a particularly Gran end to Sport for the B-Body Buick…
So America proved back then that it *could* build a comfortable sedan that also handled tautly. The question was: did mainstream American drivers themselves desire that feel behind the wheel? I think most wanted to be coddled, and many still do. For the rest, there were Corvettes and F-bodies.
Things are relative to people and times. For someone like my dad, that had access to Oldsmobile 88 company cars from 1967 through 1992, the base suspension was perfect for 98% of the way he drove those cars – which was a lot of Midwestern interstates and highways.
The fleet manager ordered a few cars with beefed up suspensions because he was a car guy and did a lot of towing. My dad referred to those cars as having that “damn towing suspension.”
But, my dad had no interest in feeling and hearing every expansion joint between Lincoln and Kearney Nebraska anymore than necessary. There were few curves to worry about and he never towed with a company car.
“My dad referred to those cars as having that “damn towing suspension.”
An ‘American’s American’! lol
Me? I like a little road feel, heavy steering, the car giving me feedback regardless of size. A safethy thing, you could say.
Your dad might well have felt differently if his territory was up in the mountains. I wonder how regional the take rate for HD suspensions was?
This would have been a sweet car with the Buick 350 or the Olds 403. But the turbo V6 would have ruined it for me.
And was there ever a more uninspired tail end than on the 77-79 LeSabre?
The 77-78 Catalina or the 1984 Olds 88? 🙂
I dunno, I always liked the 84’s rear end, it was the 85 with the cynical giant red turn signals in place of the 84s amber turn signals that I don’t like.
On page 76, column three of the reproduced article on the LeSabre Sport, mention is made of a “built-in wanderer option, where constant correction is needed of the steering to keep the car going straight.
Was this true, that similar to the 2011-13 Hyundai Sonata, the feature Buick had a mind of its own when it came to its steering, or was that just a joke by the article writers?
I would had wanted a Buick V8 engine in my Buick. The BUICK 350 4BBL engine would had been my choice?
I wonder if any more aggressive rear axle ratios were available?
Per the 1977 Buick Dealer Sales Album, here is the breakdown of available axle ratios for the V8s:
LeSabre
301 2V: 2.41 (Not available in California)
350 4V: 2.41
403 4V: 2.41 (Federal, CA), 2.56 (Altitude), 3.08 optional on all
Electra
350 2V: 2.41, 3.08 optional (Not available in CA)
350 4V: 2.41 (CA only)
403 4V: 2.41, 3.08 optional (Federal only, 3.08 n/a in CA)
403 4v: 2.56, 3.08 optional (Altitude)
Riviera
350 4V: 2.41, 3.08 optional (3.08 n/a in CA)
403 4V: 2.41, 3.08 optional (Federal only, 3.08 n/a in CA)
403 4v: 2.56, 3.08 optional (Altitude)
Estate Wagon
350 4V: 2.73
403 4V: 2.56, 3.08 optional (Federal only)
403 4v: 2.73, 3.08 optional (Altitude)
Confused yet?
“And was there ever a more uninspired tail end than on the 77-79 LeSabre?”
No. That rump would have driven me to an Electra. Or Bonneville, Caprice, 88, Ninety-Eight. Anything.
While it may have been more inspired, the Riviera variation of this rear end only managed to make it uglier.
Agree 100%. The rear styling ruined the 77-79 LeSabres for me. If they had just eliminated the “droop” at the end of the top fender line and across the top of the trunk, it would have looked so much better IMHO. They corrected this in the 1980 refresh and those looked much better and resulted in one of the best looking B-bodies from 1980-85.
I’m in the opposite situation! I like the 1977-79 but don’t care much for the 1980 restyle. 1981-82 even less with the elimination of the amber turn signals at the back.
I like other cars with that styling theme, the Peugeot 504 is one of them! Not that I would want to buy one but I like them.
I’m a Euro-socialist. I have no issues with amber rear turn & hazard indicators.
The engine picture looks like an Olds powerplant.
Yes, the Oldsmobile 403 engine, mentioned as available in the road test.
After reading this road test in my much enjoyed monthly “C&D” magazine, I had a bad case of “Automotive Lust”.
I visited EVERY Buick dealer in the New Orleans, LA area, looking for this car.
One sales manager flatly denied that this model existed.
Another dealer said they would never have this model in stock; but offered to special order it for me….at FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS above the retail sticker!
At the last dealer I checked, the salesman stared at me, bug-eyed, then emitted a short chortle of derision.
I often checked my local “News On Wheels” used car magazine (this was before the internet, remember) looking for a LeSabre Sport Coupe.
No Joy.
Having owned a ’71 Rivera Gran Sport, this car seemed like the logical, updated replacement for my ageing Boat Tail.
Yet another automotive obsession never requited.
What did you expect from these @holes? Did you show him the brochure?
One of my favorite pastimes was going to dealers asking these sales bozos questions I already knew the answer to. Was it entertaining? You bet. I remember asking one Ford dingbat about the automatic parking brake release option the the LTD. (standard on big Mercs since ’65) . His reply? Only Cadillacs have that! WTF!
I used to do this to when I was a teenager. Looking back I’m sure that I came across as a really obnoxious punk.
The summer after I graduated, I contemplated trading in my 93 Topaz for a 95 Dodge Dakota ext.cab. Went and test drove one. On the drive, asked the salesman if it had ABS (knowing full well all Dakotas had standard rear wheel ABS). He scanned the sticker on the window and said no. Back on the lot, poking around under the hood to see how easy service was (oil filter location, etc), I point to the ABS controller and ask “what’s that”. “Oh, guess it does have ABS”.
I always felt that as a salesman, you should know your product. As I’ve found out over the years (including a roommate who worked in sales), you don’t have to know your product. You just have to know how to talk someone into buying something. That’s all.
I was picking up a brochure at a dealership back around 1982. There was a totally obnoxious salesman who had just taken a car in on trade and he could not control his excitement about the hood ornament that he planned on taking for his own. He was bragging to everyone who would listen that that hood ornament was a lion from an old Franklin and was worth big bucks. I took pleasure informing him that it was a reproduction sold through JC Whitney. Too bad so sad.
One of my top 10 favorite cars!
The “Coupe” part killed it. They should’ve built a LeSabre Sport Sedan (or even a Sport Wagon) for people who wanted a bit of fun behind the wheel but needed a full-size to haul all those kids around. Bonus – the firmer ride would be less carsick-inducing.
Big-coupe buyers wanted fluffy comfort, or they would’ve bought a smaller coupe or ponycar.
The marketing departments muddied the definition of ‘coupe’. By their standards, *anything* with only two doors designated for passenger ingress/egress was a ‘coupe’. This could conceivably apply to pickup trucks and the original SUVs: Blazers, Ramchargers, and Broncos.
Easy. Just order the optional suspension package. That’s all this was, along with some blackout trim, easily taken care of with a rattle can. There’s no magic about this car; just a package of readily available parts.
Buick’s Product Planning was rather muddled at this point with regard to the handling suspension options for the B/C-Bodies. According to the 1977 Buick Dealer Sales Manual, all LeSabre/Electra/Riviera/Estate Wagon models EXCEPT the Sport Coupe could be ordered with the F40 Firm Ride and Handling Package, which featured higher rate front and rear springs, tighter valved shock absorbers, larger diameter front stabilizer bar, heavy duty wheels–this option was recommended for trailer towing. The Riviera could be ordered with the Rallye Ride and Handling Package, which featured heavy duty springs and shocks, rear stabilizer bar. Neither of these options featured the faster-ratio power steering that was standard on the Sport Coupe, and only the Riviera offered optional 4-wheel disc brakes. So Buick really was all over the map on handling options… Chevrolet was much simpler with the F41 available on any B-Body model.
Trying to buy a LeSabre GS sounds even worse than when Buck dealers were selling German cars. Not too bad looking without the half-vinyl roof. The ‘Wee-Six’ wouldn’t have been an option for me either. That later ‘formal’ roof version is hideous!
Interesting to note on the road test where the Chevy Caprice stopped shorter than the GS. However, the GS stopped shorter than the 4-wheel disc Volvo.
Happy Motoring, Mark
This test car was probably just yet another GM “ringer” that never actually existed in the wild. It probably did have the bigger brakes on it. And the sales manager in the post above who denied the car exists? He probably nailed it, would explain why no sales numbers for these in ’77. And yes, that engine compartment shot is of an Oldsmobile engine.
A ringer? That could only do 0-60 in 12.2 seconds! I certainly hope not.
They gush about this car so much, but the stats show that a Caprice 350 would walk away from this. And of course handle just as well or better, with the F41 suspension.
Well if I were a buyer at the time, this would have been my second choice behind a loaded Caprice F41. Just depended on how fat a wallet 1977 parallel universe me would have had.
LOL that is what a coupe with the std 301 2BBL could easily run. A 403 car would be an easy 8 second car, especially if it had the optional 3.08 rear gears.
Looking at the numbers on the graphs in the road test; it would appear that the Chevrolet was the “ringer” of this group. Quicker than a same body Buick with a larger engine, quicker stopping & quieter inside than the Buick?
C’mon now….
“Car & Driver” was famous (infamous?) for the early production road test cars supplied to them by various car manufactures that would grind out numbers never equaled by production cars in “The Real World”.
Mark, both of these cars had 350 engines; the tested Buick did not have the 403. Did you not get that?
Without looking it up, I rather suspect the tested Caprice weighed less and had a higher numerical rear axle ratio. I’d bet on it.
But let’s stop with the “ringer” finger pointing, as it often just becomes a cheap way of denying other factors or just plain superiority.
My apologies; I thought the test car had the Olds 403 engine in it.
D’OH!!
The axle ratio would explain the quicker acceleration, yes. I believe I mentioned that in another reply.
Of all the 77 downsized brands Buicks were my fave. Coupes and sedans.
Oldsmobile had a similar full sized Delta coupe with sport pretensions. Can’t remember the name of that model but it was more tasteful with a nicer interior. Very limited production, I’d guess. Never seen one in the wild but have seen them for sale on the net.
Delta Holiday 88.
At least this came with buckets and console, unlike the LeSabre Sport Coupe. But, I thought at the time that the Old’s packaging was a little odd with the rather Cadillac Fleetwood like wheel covers. And, the “Holiday” name struck even my rather conservative 14 year-old self as dorky at the time. I know it had Olds heritage, but it was way too 1949 in the late ‘70s.
At least you could equip this Olds with a variant of their Super Stock wheels. And, a hair dryer and some Goof-Off would have taken care of those “Holiday” badges.
Make mine a 350 and beef up the suspension.
That ad looks edited. The very top of the male’s head can be seen under the word idea.
??
this is the one I liked!!
The Holiday 88 (bucket seat) package ran for about four years. I lived in prime Olds country at the time, and probably a quarter of 88 coupes were Holidays. My family owned several big Oldsmobiles at the time, and preferred the big bench seat.
I too lived in Olds country, and we had several in the family. But, I’d have to respectfully disagree with your estimate on the Holiday package on the coupes. My guess is it sold ever so slightly better than the LeSabre Sport Coupe, but it was still quite rare.
A female manager at my first “real job” had one in the pre 1980 style. In red, with Super Stock wheels, and unfortunately a vinyl top. I perhaps saw one more in the 1980 and up style. On the other hand, the “Brougham” level trim introduced in ’79 sold very well. I had an ’82 coupe in Brougham trim and it was a Brougham’s Brougham.
Perhaps it was regional?, I too remember seeing a lot of “Holiday” 88s, OTOH, The LeSabre Sport Coupe was much less often seen in my area (near Pittsburgh) Oddly I think I have seen more Palm Beach LeSabres. and that was a one year edition.
Back when I wrote the post on Archie Manning and Royal Oldsmobile in December, I did try to uncover sales for the Oldsmobile Delta 88 Holiday Coupe. Here’s the excerpt on sales (actual and possible) from that post:
Oddly, while sales of the 88 Holiday Coupe are broken out separately for 1980 (3,547 sold) and 1981 (1,637 sold), separate sales totals for the Y98 package are not available for 1978 or 1979. For both 1980 and 1981, the Holiday 88 package was added to about 50% of the base Delta 88 Coupes sold in those years. So applying that same 50% of the production mix for the Y98 package to the sales of base Delta 88 Coupes in 1979 (16,202), you’d wind up with 8,101 units, give or take. So this Silver 88 Holiday Coupe in New Orleans (and my mother-in-law’s in New Jersey) were fairly rare cars out of the ~1,000,000 Oldsmobiles built for 1979. For contrast, 60,687 of the plusher Delta 88 Royale Coupes were sold that year.
GN, I also recall the Holiday 88 Coupe.
Royal Oldsmobile (the dealer Archie shilled for) had a two tone white with black sides on on their showroom floor. (But no “Saints Special” gold and black model?)
I sat in it briefly. The narrow bucket seat felt hard (not firmly supporting) to me and pinched the hips and shoulders of my admittedly full sized (6-1, 48 chest, 36 inch waist, 48 Long suit) weight lifting, All American self. The bench seat with fold down arm rest in a “regular” Delta 88 sitting next to it felt more comfortable to me.
The “additional Dealer Profit” add on window sticker insulted and enraged me. (This was before it was standard practice at Honda Accord/Prelude and Mazda RX-7 dealers).
It always amazed and confounded me how Royal Oldsmobile sold SO many cars with SO little window sticker discount for SO many years.
I’ve always lusted after one of those Holiday 88 coupes, since I first saw the ad as a teenager. Hard to find now.
For some reason I though the LeSabre Sport Coupe offered bucket seats, maybe after ’77?
For all the gushing (C&D was famous for that), the actual performance stats for this car are pretty pathetic. 0-60 in 12.2 seconds? The little Opel Manta with a 1.9 four did just about the same. And the 1.4 mile in 18.3 seconds? The Volvo 242 DL they compare it with was faster. And that was a notorious slug. The Caprice blows it away.
For all the gushing, any B body could be ordered with a handling package and bigger tires. Make mine a Caprice sedan, without vinyl roof.
Frankly, these big coupes were past their sell date, as one of the most important things Mercedes did was to make a four door sedan desirable. Who wants to have to clamber into the back seat of a big coupe?
Buick was just starting down the road of trying to match the top tier imports with cars like this, but it wasn’t quite convincing enough. Just opening the door was the proof.
I was attracted to the fundamental capabilities of the new B Bodies at this time, but the interiors, especially the gaudier ones, were a turn-off if one had been exposed to a different aesthetic sensibility.
Just makes a stronger case for getting the 403.
I also am puzzled at the difference between the Caprice and the LeSabre’s acceleration times. Both are the same basic car, similar weights, similar sized engines, same 3 speed transmissions.
The biggest difference that I can think of would be final drive (rear axle) ratios?
Between the 2.41 ratio in the Buick and (I am guessing here) an optional 3.08 or 3.42 in an F41 suspension equipped Chevy Caprice, this would more than account for the acceleration differences?
I prefer the Buick’s grille, tail lights, dashboard and interior seat trim to that of the Caprice. But, that’s just me….
Between a Volvo and Benz I don’t know which had the stiffer or duller looking seats?
True, the short lived “Bent Back Window” of the Caprice would had been hard to resist.
I don’t know the situation in the rest of the country, but finding a Caprice with the F41 suspension, optional “gage” (In GM parlance) cluster and aggressive rear axle ratio was difficult in New Orleans in this time period.
As 1975 was the last year Buick had the German Opel imported, comparing it to a 1977 Buick is an unfair and specious comparison. C’mon, Paul, you are better (and usually more accurate) than this!
Paul N. wrote:
“For all the gushing (C&D was famous for that), the actual
performance stats for this car are pretty pathetic. 0-60 in
12.2 seconds? The little Opel Manta with a 1.9 four did
just about the same. And the 1.4 mile in 18.3 seconds?
The Volvo 242 DL they compare it with was faster. And
that was a notorious slug. ”
Another ‘American’s American’! Judging performance primarily by 0-60 times and quarter mile time.
After driving a 2005 Chevrolet Malibu(Epsilon) with one of GM’s forays into electric power steering, with its zero road feel and left-pull that two dealerships and two independent aligners could not remedy, I have since valued handling and maneuverability hands down over any straight-line shootout contest.
My next car, a 2008 Kia Optima, with a peppy 4cyl and conventional hydraulic power steering, could surely out-maneuver the Malibu, even if it could not match the V6 sedan in top output.
0-6 times and quarter mile times quickly lose their appeal, in the real world away from the track.
I always liked these, though I have to admit that the one with the half vinyl roof seems like a contradiction in terms, as does the interior. To me, the biggest problem with this, was that it was in the wrong place in the B body scheme of things. Take this whole concept, bring it down to the Impala two door, with its more businesslike interior, throw in the bucket seats and console and rally wheels from the 77 Monte Carlo option list, make the 350 the standard engine , make the F41 suspension standard, put the bigger brakes on, do the blackout trim and there you have an Impala SS Coupe. I think they would’ve had a chance of selling a few more of them had they done this because at least people would’ve identified more with an impala SS. Although coupes were starting to be on the decline in sales, I think that would have had a better shot than the actual Buick model did. And had they built an Impala like that, finding one today would have been like finding the holy grail
Completely agree! An Impala “Sport Coupe” (or SS) would have made much more sense. Oddly, I think Chevrolet was the only GM division that never offered bucket seats on its B-Body cars–they became available starting in ’78/’79 for Pontiac, Olds and Buick.
I also think the Pontiac Catalina would have been a great candidate for this sort of sport treatment. It would have fit better with Pontiac’s “performance” image and potentially given the Catalina a much needed boost.
I think that much like Lexus today, in the 1970s Buick was grappling with its image and trying to be “bolder.” In this article, Car and Driver snidely referred to Buick’s customers as “silver haired” which made the brand seem more geriatric than it was–C&D’s statement felt a bit like the rebellious “don’t trust anyone over 30” mantra. In reality at the time, Buick was effectively targeting the sweet spot for affluent car buyers, which was then (and is now) primarily middle-aged people, like it or not. Buick arguably did not fully become an “old person’s car” until the mid-1980s/early 1990s with the ancient Century and “old school” big cars (both FWD and RWD). Still, in 1977 the division seemed to want to push back against their successful but conservative image–but Buick didn’t go far enough to attract new, more import-oriented buyers, and the “sport” positioning was confusing to existing customers.
I was nearly convinced that the ’77-’84 LeSabre never came with buckets and console. I’ve never seen a factory photo, brochure, or advertisement featuring such a set-up.
But, a few minutes on the web yielded this photo. This has got to be a Unicorn among big Buicks in this era……….
The buckets did not arrive for the Buick until the 1979 model year, and they only lasted through 1981.
In an interesting “cost down” move, note that the Sport Coupe now came with the really basic LeSabre bench seat as standard (that move happened for ’78, perhaps to offset the price bump for the Turbo)–so all Sport Coupes had to be ordered with buckets (from ’79 on) or even the notchback bench (from ’78 on) as options. Also, the standard LeSabre Coupe could be ordered with the bucket seats as well…
To your point, any of these LeSabres with buckets would have been very rare indeed!
These were bad and seemed to rust faster than it’s badge engineered cousins.
IDK where you live, ed, but here in New Orleans ’77 Impala/Caprices were well know for their peeling clear coats and hood/top/trunk rust. Buicks and Oldsmobiles fared much better.
But these cars did not have clearcoat paint. The first American car with clearcoat paint was the ’77 Lincoln Versailles.
I do believe that you are mistaken on this.
I suspect that Daniel Stern and I are talking about two different paint jobs, both generically called “clear coat”.
Any metallic finish paint used in the 1960’s and 1970’s had some amount of clear paint added to the paint; otherwise the metallic paint would look dull and flat.
General Motors was famous (or should I say infamous) for their “Magic Laquer” metallic paint that often peeled off faster than a solid color enamel paint job would let loose.
This was the “clear coat” I was referring to that often peeled off metallic paint jobs.
The “color coat/clear coat” paint job that Daniel Stern is referring to became popular in the very late 1970’s early 1980’s.
Sorry about the confusion.
Yours is the first such usage I’ve ever seen or heard; I’m pretty sure “clear coat paint” really means one thing only: base colour coat under clear top coat.
The sales figures on these in conjunction with the price stats really illustrates where the buying public’s priorities were at the time. I was surprised to see that according to the price chart in the article the Cutlass Supreme was priced higher than this car. In ’77 the Cutlass was still the Collonade, with absurd interior space utilization and rather gaudy styling in comparison to the clean lines and better use of space here.
The pricing and those interior shots only served to make me a little irritated with my now-deceased father for having spent nearly the same money on a well-optioned ’77 Monte Carlo with an absolutely miserable back seat for 3 kids and of course stupid “Opera Windows”, vinyl half top treatment and the “Landau” package. My family never owned a Pontiac or Buick, as Dad had a beef of some sort with the local dealer. Even 3 years later when we started climbing the Sloan Ladder it was Olds that got the nod, and the purchase was conducted through a dealer several towns away. In fairness, those years were the height of “Olds Fever”, so I suppose that was a factor, but always irked me that we never got to shop the Pontiac/Olds dealership, because their inventory always seemed to have a few gems right out front.
The Cutlass Supreme, Regal coupe, and base Le Sabre were priced within a couple hundred dollars. A Cutlass with T-tops easily could be more than a Le Sabre.
One of these made it into the movies, check out Robert (Jimmy Conway) De Niro’s ride in “Goodfellas”.
Yes, I also recall that Buick!
Lotta great “period correct” cars in that outstanding movie.
The three spoke steering wheel should have been standard on all the 77-84 Buick B/Cs!
Respectfully disagree, I think it would have looked ridiculous on an otherwise stately Electra and, really, even the family style LeSabre. There have been styling exceptions like the ’59 front clip, the Boattail Riviera, etc., but the bigger Buicks were generally conservative cars bought by aesthetically conservative people.
The three spoke sport wheels with color matched rims look great in Buicks and Olds. I put a matching maroon one in my Brougham.
In all my searching when I was younger, it was pretty rare to find a LeSabre with the 403, excluding wagons. I did happen to own a 78 LeSabre 4-door with the Olds engine. Now to find the Sport Coupe with this engine, now that is a task. I have never seen one in person or advertised on the net. But would love to have one in the garage. With lamp monitors, of course!
It seems like this should have been faster than the tested results. Until I sold it last year, I had a 1977 Electra 225 with the Buick 350. It did 0-60 in less than 12—my admittedly unscientific tests placed it somewhere between 10.5-11.5. Not neck-snapping but the 300 lb lighter Sport Coupe ought to have been a half second quicker yet, seems to me. I did have duals and no cats on the car, so maybe it was choked down a bit on the test car. It was a nice smooth engine, but somewhat hard to imagine in a sporting application. It was, however, miles ahead of the 307 powered 80s versions in get up and go as well as holding speed on steep grades without downshifting.
I actually like the shovel-nosed front end on these Buicks. In a group of cars that was looking much more similar than their predecessors, it’s my opinion that it stood out in a good way. I considered it a nod to past quirky front ends, like the ’59, but not so unusual.
With the distance of almost a year from most recent ownership, I think another issue with these cars is they looked too much like the far more conservative Electra (or vice versa). It might have made more sense to use the ’79 front end on the Electras (which would also give them some continuity with the ’76 models) and keep the shovel on these.
I’d enjoy driving one of these with the 403 and the smog controls removed for an afternoon, but I don’t think I’d really want one. I agree with Paul N that big coupes were past their sell-by date in “sporting” applications by this time. If you wanted a big coupe, the one to have was either personal luxury like the Eldo, Mark, T-Bird, or it was the Coupe DeVille.
Sorry, but having duals and no cats, and relying on unscientific methods does not make a valid point of comparison. 🙂
Which is why I qualified the comment 🙂 Still, every single time I tested my car’s ability to 0-60, no matter the circumstances or the road, the stopwatch didn’t get to 12. So while I acknowledge the merely anecdotal value of the evidence, I think the result is odd given that it is a significantly lighter car.
Anyway, by any measure it was certainly not that impressive for anything with sporting pretensions, even in the Malaise Era.
Old car mag performance numbers are always very suspect.
I use to drive a 244DL and it sure as heck did not get did not get anywhere near 38mpg. It normally pulled around 18 in the city and no more than 24-26 on freeway trips.
Gotta agree with Orrin.
Having driven many, many cars over my 45 years of having a driver’s license, I like to think my “seat of the pants” meter is well developed.
The “downsized” 350 V8 Buicks I have driven “felt” quicker than this road test indicated; 350 V8 Chevvies “felt” slower than what the “Car & Driver” bar graph (in the roast test specifications) indicated.
And that’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.
I would never ever trust most of these old car magazines 0-60 tests as very accurate. Being the car guy I am I have driven loads of Buick 350 4BBL equipped B-body cars and they indeed run much better than 12.2 seconds 0-60. I also know that engine tune varied between cars, some of these tests were with very low mileage green motors that needed more break in and more often than not the factory base timing was off on many of these due to the sloppy standards of the day. We used to put a timing light up to brand new cars back in the day at idle and found that many were retarded as much as 6 degrees while others were spot on and still others were advanced. That would partially explain the drastic differences in Consumer Guides auto test series with several very similar cars equipped with Slant six engines. One test said the engine performed admirably but pinged on regular gas. It also exceeded the mileage number by quite a bit (sounds like advanced base timing to me) while another test of the same year M-body said it drank gas like a V8, was slow and didn’t perform very well.
Another example is the 1981 E-body Riviera vs Olds Tornado test both with 307 V8’s and 3 speed automatics and 2.41 gears. The Riviera was nearly 2 seconds quicker according to the test reports. Another car with advanced timing perhaps or the Toro had retarded timing.
I’m trying to avoid getting into this pissing match, but the assertion that GM would give a new car to C&D to test with the ignition retarded is…retarded (to use a non-PC term). A press car going to the most influential magazine at the time? You can’t be serious.
You guys are all so subjective and defensive. One minute GM is being accused that the Caprice was a ringer because it was too fast for your liking and now GM is accused of handing out an anti-ringer because it’s too slow for your liking. Absurd.
Sorry, but unless you tested your car(s) with the same high-level instruments that C&D did, on a level track, I’m not buying any of your seat-of-the-pants “expert testimony”
It is what it is; results from a national magazine with state-of-the-art testing instruments. Go find another magazine test of the same-equipped car, and then maybe there’s something to talk about, other than your well-faded memories and prejudices. 🙂
Could it be that some peeps just like the Caprice more than the LeSabre…and vice versa?
I can’t give an accurate comparison between the LeSabre vs Caprice, But I will say my ’77 Limited which had the base Buick 350 didn’t fell like a “downgrade” from my 455 powered ’71.
Paul N: “It is what it is”…???
Come on Paul, I think better of you than to use that lame phrase, LOL!
When I was in college in the 80s a buddy had a ’77 LeSabre coupe — not sport coupe, regular coupe — with the Olds V8.
It was a fabulous car. Just wonderful. Screwed together tight, pretty good handling, powerful, comfortable.
I think one of the reasons the Sport Coupe was such a tough sell is that the regular LeSabre coupes, especially when equipped with one of the bigger motors, were so good at their intended mission.
With hindsight, this car reminds me of a late 70s version of my first car, a ’99 Honda Accord Coupe. Relatively big 2 door for its time (in the case of the LeSabre, post-downsizing) with equal parts luxury and sportiness.
Jeez, I just fell in love! My pops had an 83 LeSabre sedan and of all of his shitboxes it is the car I have the best memories of..comfy, stable, and yes, those velour seats were warm in the Nj winters. I love the pseudo-Jag dash and the stance of this car. Make mine a Buick 350 – I’ll swap out the rear gears and put in a Gear Vendors OD and just cruuuuuuiiiiise
These pics remind me of my least favourite car. I had the ’83 Buick Lesabre Limited. Olds 307 with auto OD. If you have never owned one of these you cannot imagine how average wind speeds so severely impeded its passing capabilities. I have had many many cars but this one owns the Least Torque Award.
The 350 should have given 10s 0-60 not anything more than that, because the car weight is the same as Caprice, and the engine gives the similar power. I will take a measurement some day of my 36’000 miles driven all-original LeSabre coupe, so then I will at least know. By the way when comparing Car and Driver and Motor Trend results I’d say that the quarter mile was not 16,8 for Caprice, but it should have been 17,8 also by Car and Driver values! I have the actual weight and it is 3800 lbs about full tank etc.
About Sport Coupe I was searching particularly this model, until I found out, that they really made ONLY 1977 this model with V8. So really rare to find. And when I found at year 2014 this 28tml “regular” LeSabre, the decision was clear. After 3 years it has now 36’000 miles in odo and only update I am still considering is to update the Impala SS 1994-1996 springs and possibly the tough sway bar to front… possibly, perhaps not.
350 Buick
I had also plans before buying, that I would throw the original 350 to junkyard and put 350 LT1 Chevy ’90’s or at least 403 or something… but after driving for awhile with the technic I have noted, that the “performance second figures” and the “real life performance” might not be always the same. The engine gives about full torque from idle and even it does not rev much over 4000 “likely”, and the only 3 spd transmission and very long axle ratio.. they all work fine together! It might feels something like some modern turbodiesel or some V6 engine in modern car. “Effortless”. Driven some 500 miles with one XF Jaguar 2013, 2,7 turbodiesel, was something like similar?
Buick LeSabre vs. Mercedes w126
After selling one ’69 Cougar project at this January I took as a “partial payment” one 1986 Mercedes w126, SE300 as trade, and I owned the Mercedes for a month, quite disliked it. When comparing to this Buick the Mercedes steering was MUCH WORSE, the Mercedes was noisier, the feeling to road was neither very good… Only the suspension itself was tougher than original LeSabre suspension, I admit that… but when remember the “police suspension”, which I had in one Caprice 1979 I think the Mercedes would have loosen against that too! Further: the 6 cyl 188 bhp 3,0 liter engine and Mercedes “snapping” automatic … ridiculuous. Highrevving engine with somehow big car – w126 – was really not exciting to me!
RIVIERA 403
About performance by the way: ( Road Test July 1977 ) with 185 bhp/3600 rpm 403 engine the Riviera 1977 1/4 mile value was 17,2s, 0-60 at 9,4 s and the weight of the Riviera was about 200 lbs heavier.
With this being an old post no one may see this thread but what the heck. My daughter was given a 1977 Sport Coupe Lesabre in 2013 at 82,000 miles and still uses it for her daily driver. The car is a basic optioned coupe with a 403. The article does make a point about the overall balance of this car. The ride is comfortable and the handling is good for a car of this size. There is not a week that goes by where someone asks her about the car or gives a thumbs up when driving. While the 1970s was not a high point for automobiles this car is a bright spot.
Well, I at least saw it (ten months later). I hope your daughter enjoys it; it is a rare glimpse into another era.
This LeSabre has taken a lot of flak for the relatively leisurely 0-60 and quarter mile times. Two factors are at play here, in my opinion. First, is the axle ratio. The ’77 Caprice that won the Motor Trend Car of the Year award used a 3.08:1 axle. That probably made most of the difference.
Secondly, by that time, the Buick 350 was actually choked down to 155 hp. In fact, it was banned in California, and they substituted Olds 350s, which had 170 hp, for that state. By that time, the 350 was a good engine if you needed to move a lot of weight, but it wasn’t that great for moving it fast. So basically, it was a good engine for station wagons, towing, etc. Not so good for street racing. Now I’m sure it could be modified, but in stock form it was a dog.
BTW, the stats for that Motortrend Caprice were 0-60 in 10.8 seconds, quarter mile in 18.2 seconds @ 79 mph. So all things considered, the LeSabre isn’t *that* much worse.
About 20 years ago, a local guy had a ’79 Bonneville with a Buick 350 that he wanted to get rid of. He was actually donating it, but I asked if I could drive it, and make him an offer if I liked it. At the time, my daily driver was an ’89 Gran Fury that had been a police car, so admittedly, that’s not a fair comparison. But, we also still had my grandmother’s ’85 LeSabre in the family. The LeSabre definitely felt quicker, despite just having the 307. But, GM had also shaved a few hundred pounds off these cars in the 1980 re-skin. And our LeSabre had a 2.73:1 axle, which helped. Plus, the lighter 4-speed THM200R-4 transmission, which had a quicker first and second gear.
It’s probably a real obscurity these days, but in 1980, the Michigan State Police tested a LeSabre police car with the 350. 0-60 was 13.4 seconds, quarter mile was 19.5 seconds @ 74.3 mph. If it’s any consolation, that year’s Impala 350 was just about as bad… 0-60 in 12.9, quarter mile in 19.08 @ 73.3 seconds. I think they both failed the MSP’s test, because they took too long to get from 0-100, or some metric like that.
Last summer my ’79 Toyota Supra was totalled by a utility company. With the settlement I received, I got a ’77 LeSabre Sport Coupe. The guy I got it from bought it new in 1977 and always religiously maintained everything. Engine, carb and transmission was recently rebuilt when I purchased it, and by that time it wasn’t seeing much road anyways as the owner was in his late 80s. Never driven in winter.
I’m only 27 but this is the best car I’ve ever owned. Mine has the Olds 350 with all the emissions deleted and cold air intake installed.
I wouldn’t say it’s a slow car at all, sure it could be quicker (and will be within the coming year) but it definitely quicker than it would have been stock.
Very nice handling too, doesn’t feel like you’re driving a 1970’s boat at all. Drove it from Northern Minnesota back to western Colorado and it was a great ride.
Been my daily driver since last summer. I intend on keeping it for the rest of my life.
The ’77 to ’85 Buick full-sizers, both LeSabre and Electra, were just nice cars to me. I particularly like the ’77 to ’79 models best. Though I had an ’84 LeSabre sedan and it was a good car. Good styling, good quality. What’s not to like?
Regarding the discrepancies in package content (e.g., bigger brakes, color availability), I think if there’s a reference in the actual text of the article (as opposed to the specification table), it was probably a detail specified in the initial press kit that either was wrong to begin with or that changed at the last minute.
As I said yesterday, my understanding is that in this era, the lead time for a print magazine was at least three months prior to publication (which for a May issue would mean no later than early January), and a lot of the actual tests were conducted in the summer, prior to new model year introductions, and embargoed until some specific date. Much of the technical detail in those tests was either from a press kit or from interviews with the product engineers; a magazine editor at a press preview isn’t going to be using a tape measure to determine the size of the brake discs or anything like that. When it comes to equipment and features, a lot of changes can happen at the last minute for various reasons, and don’t necessarily make it into the press kit or even the early brochures (which is why auto brochures all have some boilerplate about “specifications, equipment, and features are subject to change without notice).
Of course, magazine editors can also screw up, and there can be mechanical screw-ups in production that nobody catches before the issue goes to press, like photos of two different cars being swapped so the captions are wrong, or items on the specification table being transposed. I have a 1967 issue of Motor Trend where the pages of a group test were printed in the wrong order.
However, there’s a pretty clear difference between that kind of mechanical error and “This fact was correctly transcribed from press kit they gave us at the preview last summer, but the manufacturer subsequently changed it.” An obvious example is the resin fan that was supposed to be used on the Corvair Monza Spyder that was dropped at the last minute because it turned out to release noxious fumes when the resin got too hot. The plastic fan is mentioned in various early magazine articles on the Spyder because it was supposed to be a neat new technical feature. It was obviously in the press kit, and indeed was specified in the Corvair’s 1962 AMA specs, so the fact that the plastic fan didn’t end up on production cars was not a factual error or mistake on the part of the magazine — it was a last-minute production change that wasn’t reflected in the information available to the editors when their article was written.
From an historical perspective, this is both the benefit and downside of any kind of contemporary periodical: Even if the magazine or newspaper was put together very conscientiously, the nature of periodical publishing means that the content was (at best) only as accurate as the information available at press time, and sometimes that was inadequate or just wrong.
As far as performance data goes, at best, magazine road test data, like EPA fuel economy estimates, gives you a basis for making reasonably objective relative comparisons of different vehicles tested with the same methodology under different conditions. The magazine editors may get the data using driving techniques you can’t and wouldn’t want to replicate, but if all the cars they test are tested the same way, you can still see how A compares to B, and the results will be more objective than comparing seat-of-the-pants impressions or informal stopwatch/speedo clockings, which are seldom very accurate.
Because each magazine had its own test methodology, and test drivers of different skill levels, comparing acceleration times from, say, Car and Driver and Popular Mechanics was not necessarily very useful, but C/D to C/D or PM to would still generally give you a valid point of comparison.
There are exceptions, of course, which became a big issue in the ’80s and ’90s with high-strung performance cars that had to be really thrashed to get a good 0–60 or quarter mile ET. Car and Driver used to have a useful additional acceleration figure called 5–60 “street start,” which was more reflective of a normal driving really flooring it, but not applying any kind of drag-strip tactics, and using the 5 mph rolling start so that launch technique wouldn’t be an issue. Comparisons to the standard 0–60 times were instructive; some cars, like the L98 Corvette, did pretty much equally well in both tests, but for high-revving turbo powertrains where getting a really good launch meant a heady aroma of vaporized clutch plate, the spread could be as much as 2 seconds.
A couple of comments to clear up the many discussions in this thread. First off, the engine in the photos of the C/D test are a 350 Oldsmobile V8, not a 350 Buick V8. The stats provided show the Buick 350 bore and stroke, but the Olds power rating of 170hp. The Buick 350-4bbl was only rated at 155 hp in 1977. The Olds engine was an “alternate” engine to the Buick 350. Each 350 had a separate VIN Code. Buick was “J”, Oldsmobile “R” and Chevrolet “L.” Oldsmobile wasn’t the only one in 1977 using engines other than its own; the Lesabre could have had either 350. If the photos of shown here are the actual car they tested, then this car indeed has a Oldsmobile 350 and not a Buick 350. However, it is possible they used one car for photos and one for testing and the test car may have had the Buick 350.
Having owned several late 70’s 350 Oldsmobile V8s in Olds Delta 88’s in our family, I can tell you they are not fast cars. They have lots of torque, and feel strong for regular driving or in the hills. In fact the low end torque makes them feel stronger than a Chevy. However, in an all out performance run they fall flat on their face at high RPM compared to a Chevy 350. The Chevy’s high RPM advantage gives it a significant performance advantage. The LM1 used in the Caprice punched above its hp rating and I’d argue it was one of the best performing engines of the late 70s. It was the same engine used in the Camaro Z/28 which too had great performance. It also performed very well in the MSP tests in 1978, out running the Pontiac and Dodge 400-4bbls in 0-100 times.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/1978-michigan-state-police-patrol-vehicle-test-the-beginning-and-end-of-an-era/
On the brakes, the GM B-body had two sets of brakes; 11″ discs and 9.5″ drums or 12″ discs and 11″ drums. Buick Lesabres sedans only came with the 11″ discs and 9.5″ drums, wagons had the larger brakes. There was a police package Lesabre in the late 70s and it likely had the larger brakes, but I don’t have that information in front of me to confirm. Chevrolet 9C1 cars got the larger brakes.
For the suspension packages, the F40 was also available on some years of Chevrolet too. It was just a heavy-duty load suspension, and almost all wagons to my knowledge had this package. Lesabres only had F40 suspension in 1977. The F41 and FE1 packages was more or a sport suspension and included the rear sway bars. This was what the Lesabre Sport Coupe used but was not available on other Lesabres. It was also never available on station wagons. Steering boxes were all the same ratios for sedans, wagons used slightly slower steering boxes. Later Chevrolet Police cars used fast ratio 12.7:1 steering boxes, like the Iroc Camaros and Monte Carlo SS.
Intersting to note how long the article is, six pages and two half-pages, incluiding the data page. You don’t see magazine tests that long these days. Do people really have that much of a shorter attention span now?
A “six page”, article in a mag now a days would be the “only” article in it. The other 20-30 pages would be “ads”.
In this case LeSabre and Sport Coupe are mutually exclusive.
Late to the party…but my Mom had a 1977 Rivera, basically the same car. It was red with a white vinyl landau top and white leather (I think it was leather?). It was a 403 with the 3.08 rear and the coolest option (at the time) was it had the 4 wheel disk brakes. It had these cool little badges on the rear fenders that said “4 wheel disk”.
Back in the day, Pontiac had these “4 wheel disk” stickers that went onto the outer door handles, so I had to get a pair of those in white as well. We even rocked the Pirelli P77 white wall tires..
This https://i0.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/CD0577LeSabreSportCoupeP4.jpeg has got to be the LOWEST-profile spare tire I’ve ever seen grace the inside of a car’s boot!
It look like a modern 35series 20″ tire. Unless the quality of the photo is misleading what I think I’m seeing…