Home » GM Once Sold A Car So Unloved That Even Buick’s Revolutionary Turbo V6 Couldn’t Save It

GM Once Sold A Car So Unloved That Even Buick’s Revolutionary Turbo V6 Couldn’t Save It

Buick Turbo Coupe Unholy Fail Ts
ADVERTISEMENT

Back in the late 1970s, General Motors found itself in a bit of a pickle. The company introduced a dramatic restyling of a handful of its A-body cars and the public wasn’t impressed, resulting in plummeting sales at Oldsmobile and Buick. How did GM respond? It tried putting turbos into the cars your grandma normally bought, creating cars like the 1979 Buick Century Turbo Coupe. The effort was an ambitious and impressive failure.

Countless journalists have told you this before, including myself, but the 1970s were a critical turning point in automotive history. The decade opened up with muscle cars making almost unfathomable gross horsepower numbers. Then, America’s automakers started taking gut punch after punch. First, the switch to net horsepower ratings instead of gross power made all those muscle cars of the era appear a lot weaker, and then came the oil crises, concerns for vehicle safety, concerns for the environment, and the tightening of belts all over the country. V8s lost power, cars got substantially smaller, and styling got worse. Quality was also in the toilet and overall confidence was low. These are among the factors that earned the decade of 1973 to 1983 the Malaise Era moniker today.

Vidframe Min Top
Vidframe Min Bottom

Some of the more fascinating stories to come out of this era aren’t just how bad the cars got, because we all know about that, but how automakers tried to get people into seats despite the shortcomings of the products. America’s automakers were facing luxury and performance competition from Europe while the cars and motorcycles flooding in from Japan represented great value and increasing quality.

If it wasn’t hard enough to stay relevant while complying with new regulations and fighting strong competition from overseas, Detroit also found ways to set itself back by shooting itself in the foot. In the case of General Motors, it released a handful of new cars so unloved by the public that sales fell into a freefall. Buick tried to reverse course while also attracting new buyers into showrooms. In theory, souping up cars with turbos, graphics, and handling packages should have brought people into showrooms. The 1979 Buick Century Turbo Coupe was basically a Grand National before that was a thing, but it was a total flop.

Half-Baked Fastbacks

Aeroback

ADVERTISEMENT

Trouble began brewing in 1978. That year, General Motors introduced a redesigned and downsized A-body platform. It was a radical change compared to what was sold before, the Colonnades, from my retrospective:

For General Motors, Colonnade was a fancy way to spell the end of four-door hardtops and convertibles. In their place, the Colonnade cars had large and prominent B-pillars that were there to keep occupants alive in rollover crashes. These cars would also bear the ungainly 5 mph bumpers that are so often associated with the Malaise Era. It was a reportedly controversial departure from what buyers and the auto media were used to. As Curbside Classic notes, the Colonnade cars were developed jointly by multiple GM divisions. Chevrolet’s team, led by John Z. DeLorean, designed the front suspension. Pontiac handled the suspension business in the rear, Oldsmobile engineered the steering, and Buick spec’d the stopping power. The frame came from GM research, and the advancements were numerous.

According to an engineering report for 1973, the new A-body Colonnade cars got a stronger perimeter frame, new body mounts, 6-inch wide wheels, a larger 8.5-inch rear axle, and a refined suspension both front and rear. Coupes rode on 112-inch wheelbases while four-doors and wagons rode on 116-inch wheelbases. Reportedly, the front suspension was based on the F-body suspension designed by engineer Herb Adams.

The new front suspension improved geometry while the rear suspension improved cornering stability. Stiff springs and large front anti-roll bars also helped keep a Colonnade in the driver’s intended path of travel. The engineers even thought of the daily driver with front camber. The left wheel has a slightly more positive camber than the right wheel, which aids in driving feel on a crowned road surface. As a result of these changes and more, GM’s Colonnades were known for good handling for the day, albeit with a rougher ride.

1977 would be the last year of the Colonnade era. Afterward, General Motors would continue to follow Malaise Era trends in cutting both size and weight from its vehicles in an effort to increase fuel economy.

The 1978 revisions to the A-body were drastic. General Motors kept the body-on-frame construction and maintained the front-engine, rear-wheel-drive layout, but the rest changed dramatically. A-body cars lost up to a foot in length, lost another up to 8 inches in wheelbase, and the General found a whole 600 pounds of metal to trim out of the platform’s totally redesigned bodies. Yet, the cars were advertised as having the same interior room as the outgoing models.

631113 Photos D Hier Buick Centu

ADVERTISEMENT

The A-body underpinned a long list of GM models from the Chevrolet Malibu and the Chevrolet El Camino to the Pontiac LeMans and the Buick Regal. That year, the A-body was used on a variety of body styles as well ranging from notchback coupes up to glorious wagons with sedans in between.

But things got weird over at Oldsmobile and Buick. While brands like Chevy and Pontiac got vehicles with a typical three-box design, Oldsmobile and Buick went a different direction, as they got notchbacks as well as the fastback-style “Aeroback” cars. As Mac’s Motor City Garage writes, these cars sort of looked inspired by GM’s fastback cars of the 1940s. I checked a number of historical guides and none could pinpoint exactly why GM introduced the Aerobacks. Brochures claimed the new designs were a concept for all American cars to follow for increasing rear headroom and trunk space. The best guess by Mac’s Motor City Garage is that perhaps GM was trying to chase the popularity of hatchbacks from Japan and Europe.

Sedanaeroback

Regardless of why GM did it, the Aerobacks landed with a solid thud. Despite looking like hatchbacks or liftbacks, they weren’t. All an Aeroback buyer got, aside from a rear end that resembled a dog defecating, was a substantially smaller trunk opening than if GM just went with a traditional three-body design. Reportedly, the original intention was to build real hatchbacks. Instead, the public got these half-baked creations that only looked the part.

The Aeroback design, which was featured on the Buick Century and Oldsmobile Cutlass Salon variants, was received poorly by the buying public. In 1977, the last Colonnade Buick Century models sold more than 134,000 copies. Just a year later, buyers went home in only 54,000 Aeroback Buick Century cars. For those of you keeping score, that’s a 60 percent drop in sales in just a year. The Cutlass Salon did a little better, losing around 50 percent, but that’s still a shocking loss in sales.

ADVERTISEMENT

Buick Century Aeroback

While Buick and Oldsmobile still had notchbacks, wagons, and other A-body styles to fall back on, they still had these Aerobacks that weren’t selling well. Their solution was an attempt to attract the performance-minded buyer, or perhaps some of the younger buyers who might have otherwise gone for an import.

Not Your Grandma’s Buick

It appears that both Buick and Oldsmobile had the same idea, but took two very different paths to get there. Let’s start with Oldsmobile, which took an embarrassing path.  The brand still had equity in its 4-4-2 name, which was applied to its famous Pontiac GTO-competing muscle car in the years prior. The 442 — GM’s marketing was sloppy and stylized the name as “442,” “4-4-2,” or “4.4.2” depending on the exact literature — made a return for the 1978 A-body, but not in the way you would expect.

Olds442sad

The 1978 Oldsmobile 442 wasn’t its own model, but a trim level slapped onto a Cutlass Salon coupe with that Aeroback design. Opting for the 442 did not net you a faster car as it would have in years past, but did net you an appearance package that somehow made the Aeroback look cool. You also got other nice add-ons like luxury interior appointments and a handling package. Olds 442 owners with the 305 V8 could expect a 14-second jog to 60 mph thanks to the 140 HP on deck. Heck, the 305 wasn’t even special to the 442. In other words, a 1978 Oldsmobile 442 didn’t live up to its name and could easily be the subject of an episode of Glorious Garbage. It’s glorious, but also fell way short.

ADVERTISEMENT

Buick would do better, creating cars that were even faster than Oldsmobile’s desecration of its muscle car nameplate. But keep in mind that we’re still talking about the late 1970s here, so doing better is still a low bar. As I stated before, Buick was having a problem moving its own Aeroback units. It was also having trouble selling its turbo cars, too.

Back in 1973, Buick engineer Ken Baker started a Boy Scout Explorer program. In it, Baker wanted to find the best of both worlds. He thought that if you could turbocharge a V6, you’d be able to give a smaller car the power of a V8 and a bigger car the fuel economy of a V6. Baker and the Boy Scouts scrounged parts together, creating a car that was reportedly a blast to drive. As a bonus, the kids got to learn so much about car engineering, too.

1979 Buick Century Img 4649 2 Sc
Bring a Trailer Seller

Baker thought he would be canned for his secret project, but Buick brass loved it so much that Baker was promoted and a turbo V6 program was greenlit. First came the 1976 Buick Century Indy 500 Pace Car, which sported a 3.8-liter V6 with a turbo making 20 pounds of boost. Sadly, the Pace Car replicas sold to the public didn’t get any forced induction.

The turbo V6 would return in 1978 in the Regal and the LeSabre. Unfortunately, as Curbside Classic notes, neither the Aeroback nor the turbo V6 was resonating with buyers as sales for both models fell flat. At the same time, Buick had a reputation for being the car of doctors, professionals, and parents. They weren’t really hot among young buyers. Buick’s solution? What if it combined an Aeroback with a turbo and made it all sporty? Would a legitimately sporty car bring people into showrooms? Enter the 1979 Buick Century Turbo Coupe.

Buick Century 1979 Images 1

ADVERTISEMENT

On paper, this chimera had a lot going for it. The 175 HP turbo 3.8-liter V6 practically ran circles around V8s of 1978 like the 305 Oldsmobile put into the 442. But Buick’s engineers didn’t stop there. They went nuts trying to turn the Century into a proper sporty car. Only the Turbo Coupe came with the FE1 handling package, which added stiffer springs, sharper steering, thick upper control arm bushings, anti-roll bars, wide tires, and a throaty exhaust system. In effect, Buick’s engineers made a sort of Grand National years before that iconic car became a thing.

Unfortunately, cracks began showing in the Century Turbo Coupe early. As a period review from Car and Driver noted, the Century Turbo Coupe didn’t have a manual transmission and the interior was left largely untouched. Yes, there was a turbo indicator so bright that it lit up the whole instrument cluster, but it was still an uninspiring Century instrument cluster. The rest of the interior also had pretty much nothing to set itself apart from the Century your parents drove. As the Car and Driver review reveals, the engineers just didn’t have the funding to go all-out like they wanted to.

1979 Buick Century Img 4535 1 03
Bring a Trailer Seller
1979 Buick Century Img 4654 Scal
Bring a Trailer Seller

The car would go on to have two identities. The engine was a work of art. The 1979 Buick Century Coupe hit 60 mph in 9.1 seconds, got 18 mpg, and was the quickest car down a quarter mile when tested against a Saab 900 Turbo, a Mercury Zephyr, and a Chevy Malibu. It even out-braked those other cars and managed to have a largely quiet interior despite the drama brought on by the engine.

A Fast Aeroback Is Still An Aeroback

On the other hand, none of the Car and Driver editors seemed to truly like the car, dinging it for heavy understeer, polarizing styling, inadequate equipment, and just the general unlikability of the car the engine was saddled in. It seemed like the engine got praise, but it was put into the wrong body. It also didn’t help that at $8,473, this car was priced into the better-equipped and more popular Regal territory. Most buyers just bought a Regal instead.

Turbooooo

ADVERTISEMENT

How bad was it? Buick sold just 1,653 Century Sport and Turbo Coupes in 1979. Yep, that number includes turbo models and naturally aspirated models. In comparison, Buick moved 21,389 Regal Turbo Sport Coupes that same year. It’s even worse than you think, too. Remember, the Regal Turbo was already a poor seller! Buick sold 273,365 units of all Regal variants that year. In other words, boosting the Aeroback design didn’t result in people falling in love.

Should you want to experience this late-’70s hotness, I have good news for you. It looks like these cars were so forgotten that you can get running examples for under $10,000, if you can even find one. I’m all for cheaper, more accessible classics, even if they weren’t popular.

Photos Buick Century 1979 1

Thankfully, Buick never gave up on the turbo V6. The engine remained in the Regal and LeSabre and was introduced into the Riviera in 1979. As for the Century, Buick kept the V6 turbo going in both the coupe and a sedan through 1980. Buick went as far as to say it had the biggest choice of turbocharged cars of any automaker in the world. Of course, all of this would lead to the iconic Grand National. So I’d think all of this paid off.

But at the time, the 1979 Buick Century Turbo Coupe must have been a confusing ride of mixed identities. On one hand, it was like a hot rod with lots of power. But on the other hand, it was, at its core, still a deeply unloved Aeroback. Either way, people weren’t buying it.

ADVERTISEMENT

(Images: GM, unless otherwise noted. Top Photo: Peter Viera/Bring a Trailer Seller.)

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on reddit
Reddit
Subscribe
Notify of
52 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jon FoRS
Jon FoRS
25 days ago

Took my drivers road test in Mom’s 1979 Olds Cutlass Salon. Even back in the day it was a slow POS. Vinyl roof- check! Brown velvet bench seats- check! Rear windows that did not open-check! V8 and no power whatsoever-check! Over-boosted steering with no road feel-check! Abysmal body panel fit and finish- check! Tiny trunk opening- check! All in all- a fine example of the malaise era!

Car Guy - RHM
Car Guy - RHM
25 days ago

I liked the A-body platform, they drove nice. In driver’s ed if you were lucky you got the 78 Cutlass supreme rather than the Ford Fairmont. You didn’t see alot of these fastback versions around as compared to the Cutlass, Malibu’s and Monte Carlos. The Turbo engines in these were problematic. It wasn’t until the EFI Turbo that things took off. I agree that these should have been true hatch backs.

Mike TowpathTraveler
Mike TowpathTraveler
25 days ago

I love these early-era turbo orphans; back in a time when they were fueled by a carburator. What they did later with EFI and intercoolers was a flat out miracle that lives on to this day…..

In 79, I was in the USCG’s mechanics (MK) service school and I recall an instructor having one of these brand-new Buick Century Turbo Coupes. White body paint with the black accents. I fell in love with that exhaust note coming from the soon-to-be venerable Buick 3.8 V6. Here before my eyes was what I thought was a streetable version of a Talladega high banks Buick Grand Nation race car. Despite the day by day failures of that rear end featuring a non-liftback, I thought in my 1979 eyes that a white Century Turbo Coupe was the bees knees!

I’d love to own one of these, right now!

Schrödinger's Catbox
Schrödinger's Catbox
25 days ago

This was one great article – These turbo models were a really well-kept secret, even in Detroit, where I grew up.

It does bring to mind Chrysler on their own disastrous downsizing in the early 60s – it’s as if the design studios could not work out a more attractive package in the time granted. No fault of theirs, you can only do so much in limited time with a crap product. Kind of looks like they tried to use the X-body (Nova family of cars) as a reference point, but the scaling went way wrong. That two-tone green one in the story made me laugh out loud because it is truly, utterly, deeply, madly, hideous.

So, we wound up with some really ungainly shapes that no amount of decals or power could cover. The idea of an aerodynamic back with that blunt, flat nose – maybe this is a great example of echo-chamber thinking? Because everyone outside of GM thought it was shit.

The dog-taking-a-dump description is absolutely accurate.

Ramaswamy Narayanaswamy
Ramaswamy Narayanaswamy
26 days ago

Save yourself 10k and get a nice Caprice Classic instead. Yes, it will not be fuel efficient, but it is body on frame and built a lot better than this economy car, even with its pitfalls…

Highland Green Miata
Highland Green Miata
27 days ago

That BAT car is so brown it probably goes from 0-60 like explosive diarrhea.

AnscoflexII
AnscoflexII
27 days ago

So my only experience of these cars is with the Olds 442 version. When I was in high school in the late 80s a guy named Daniel had one of these. They were still around then, and his was in reasonable shape.

anyway, Daniel was two years older than me, and we were in the same art classes, and one day we had stayed late, and he offered me a lift home. I declined because I had a ride and he took off.

next day, he turns up with a nice shiner and bandages on his face. Turns out he took a right turn a little too aggressively, bumped into the door, and fell right out of the Olds. The car just rolled on, and eventually came to rest against a bollard in front of a store, with a nice crease right down the middle of its front end.

anyway I was thinking about getting one of these because it had space for a portfolio, but I bought an MG Midget with a luggage rack instead

Alan Christensen
Alan Christensen
27 days ago

“…and styling got worse.”

However, there were no external forces like oil prices and emissions regulation driving the bad styling. That was their own damn fault.

Jason Smith
Jason Smith
26 days ago

It’s really hard to overstate just how ugly the 70’s were. I’m not talking about economics or politics here, just how aesthetically UGLY almost everything in America was.

Jatkat
Jatkat
25 days ago

Well mostly, can’t forget 5mph bumper requirements.

Dodsworth
Dodsworth
27 days ago

I was never a fan of the Colonnades but they were works of art next to the Aerobacks. I once saw a couple of Australian tourists happily taking pictures of one in a parking lot. After asking if I were the owner (NO!) they went on and on about how it was the most hideous thing they had ever seen. Aussies are smart.

Slow Joe Crow
Slow Joe Crow
28 days ago

I drove an Aeroback Cutlass a few times in the mid 80s when it was still relatively new. My 74 Volvo 164E blew it out of the water.

Scotty Scott
Scotty Scott
28 days ago

The Regal Turbo Coupe sold pretty well for what it was. It was the most expensive engine option in the most expensive GM A-body coupe model. The Turbo Coupe package was a $1000 option on a $5000 car.

By way of comparison, Buick only sold about 20,000 GS400s in 1969 at the peak of the muscle car era when other brands were selling multiples of that.

Dogisbadob
Dogisbadob
28 days ago

I think the not-a-hatchback looks cool, just too bad it wasn’t a real hatchback 🙁

If it was actually a real hatchback with a folding back seat, it might have been more successful. But no, just GM giving 90% like usual.

This was about the time the Japanese started coming in and taking over in high numbers. But Detroit just kept half-assing and sleepwalking.

Also, fuck the fixed rear windows. At least put sliders like Renault used on the 4!

UnseenCat
UnseenCat
26 days ago
Reply to  Dogisbadob

I agree. The basic form of the aerobacks isn’t bad. But they really, really should have been true hatchbacks.

And the rear windows behind the C-pillar should have had the pop-out swivel latch on the back corner, so they could hinge at the front edge slightly and let air flow out for ventilation like numerous imports used. GM actually did that with the smaller back vent windows behind the fixed-window rear doors on some four-door A-bodies. They even made them electric-powered. (Although they were agonizingly slow to operate. I actually rode in one that had them. And they got stuck open. Peak malaise-era GM quality right there.)

And the mostly squared-off front grille caps on the A-bodies were almost universally lackluster for styling. Here you had a car that was at least trying to have a sleek, semi-aero profile, and they slapped a flat expanse of plastic and/or chrome and called it a day. GM had done some attractive angular front-end designs on the smaller Monza/Skyhawk/Starfire cars. Even the Regal’s front design would have blended better and could have been used as a starting point.

Everywhere you look on the aerobacks, it just looks like GM cheaped out everywhere they could get away with it. Most likely there were legitimate corporate reasons behind all of it, but none of those reasons were likely to be good ones in terms of car styling and feature packages. But that’s just another typical case of GM shooting themselves in the foot.

Dogisbadob
Dogisbadob
25 days ago
Reply to  UnseenCat

40 years later, they still never learned their lesson 🙁

Jay Maynard
Jay Maynard
28 days ago

First car I ever bought was a ’79 Regal Limited. Normally aspirated, sadly (I didn’t even ask about the turbo…a 19-year-old couldn’t have afforded the insurance, if he could even get it!). Nice car. Didn’t even look at the Century.

LMCorvairFan
LMCorvairFan
28 days ago

I almost bought a Buick LeSaber Sport Coupe with the same turbo engine. Nice car quick but not as quick as the GN. It was very appealing, but didn’t in the end pull the trigger.

These are very rare today and worth grabbing if in decent shape.

Cerberus
Cerberus
28 days ago

I don’t remember these turbos at all, but the other horrible fastback things were everywhere, at least for a little while. Can’t remember the last time I saw any of them.

Loren
Loren
28 days ago

Not sure about the opening three sentences. Olds and Buick A-bodies were top sellers both at the end of the ’73-77 generation and the beginning of the ’78-up, the Cutlass was the best-selling car in the U.S. from 1975 to ’81 save for being beaten out by the ’77 Caprice…quite a run considering the Malibu and Grand Prix were competing also, on the same platform. The mid-size fastbacks which were said (as I recall) to hope to keep the VW Dasher at bay were indeed not great sellers on their own but were just variations.

Regals and Cutlasses were everywhere in those days, then people with more money bought a GM Cadillac Seville.

Anoos
Anoos
28 days ago

Is Mister BJ still around?

George Danvers
George Danvers
28 days ago

Notice how in EVERY single one of those photos, the tires are either white-walls or raised letter?? This needs to make a return.

LMCorvairFan
LMCorvairFan
28 days ago
Reply to  George Danvers

Nope.

Anthony Henderson
Anthony Henderson
26 days ago
Reply to  George Danvers

We’re going to have to bring back the sidewall, also!

Tbird
Tbird
28 days ago

Recall dad driving a diesel Olds aeroback for a week or 2 (maybe late 1982 or so, my brother was still a baby and I was in very early elementary). Our Ford Fairmont was an undenialable turd but this thing was a complete piece of shit.

Tbird
Tbird
28 days ago
Reply to  Tbird

I’m certain it was a diesel because I clearly remember dad cursing a storm when he couldn’t find fuel for the wretched thing.

Funny the things you remember 40+ years on.

Last edited 28 days ago by Tbird
Kevin B
Kevin B
28 days ago

While GM bragged that the newer A-Bodies had the same interior space as the Colonnades, it really wasn’t an engineering marvel. The Colonnades had the worst space utilization ever. GM invented the “big on the outside, small on the inside” concept.

Ranwhenparked
Ranwhenparked
28 days ago
Reply to  Kevin B

They also bought some extra rear seat room by making the door windows fixed and scooping out some hip space where the window mechanism would have been.

Kevin B Rhodes
Kevin B Rhodes
28 days ago

These cars were pretty much peak malaise era dreck, no matter what engine was in them. Those early turbos were the very definition of unreliable.

The fastback was particularly stupid, given it looked like it should have a giant useful hatch, but actually had a letter slot of a trunk lid. WTF? That is sort of normal today now that EVERY sedan more-or-less looks like this, but was seen as really, really stupid back then.

IanGTCS
IanGTCS
28 days ago
Reply to  Kevin B Rhodes

The trunk opening looks as useful as the one on my mustang. Even though it has a decent sized trunk the small opening is a hassle.

Except the GM products were presumably sold as family vehicles where people expect a useful trunk, not a sporty car where trunk practicality isn’t really a factor.

Jack Trade
Jack Trade
28 days ago

I remember the Century Sports, you’d see them around, but I don’t ever recall seeing a Turbo Coupe. Young Jack would have remembered that rear lettering for sure.

GM would execute the look so much better when it debuted the Cavalier a few years later with an actual hatchback available; those were quite popular.

Kevin B Rhodes
Kevin B Rhodes
28 days ago
Reply to  Jack Trade

The sad part is the older X-platform Nova had a proper hatchback body in the ’70s.

Jack Trade
Jack Trade
28 days ago
Reply to  Kevin B Rhodes

Good point – I think the Buick Skylark did too and my favorite, the Pontiac Ventura!

Kevin B Rhodes
Kevin B Rhodes
28 days ago
Reply to  Jack Trade

I’m sure they did. One of my great aunts had a hatchback Nova, so it was front of mind. I can still remember the absolute cacophony of squeaks and rattles inside that thing as it went down the road!

Jack Trade
Jack Trade
28 days ago
Reply to  Kevin B Rhodes

That’s a great recollection b/c wow have we gotten spoiled by how solid contemporary stuff feels. Even the most basic econo cars, er, crossovers these days ride like luxury cars from that era. I remember how domestic convertibles back then shook and swayed in an almost dangerous-feeling manner.

Kevin B Rhodes
Kevin B Rhodes
28 days ago
Reply to  Jack Trade

Domestic cars universally made me motion sick when I was a kid. The good old days sure weren’t much good!

Today’s cars are such a mixed bag though – solid build nearly across the board, features luxury makes could only dream of when we were kids, ridiculously safe to crash, and generally amazingly efficient for the performance available, if not actually all that efficient in too many cases. Yet almost universally boring if not downright ugly, horrid user interfaces, surging unreliability and expense to fix even if they are usually more reliable in the warranty period, and a general boring sameness and interchangeability to them.

I feel like the peak was about 15-20 years ago, then the shark was jumped. Which is why my newest car is now 10 years old, a ’14 Mercedes E350 wagon. The next generation ramped up the complexity of an already complex car to 11, then they Oubacked it, completely killing any desire of mine to have a newer one than my generation.

Jack Trade
Jack Trade
28 days ago
Reply to  Kevin B Rhodes

I’m with ya. My newest car, my daily, is 14 years old. I bought her as I had a hunch what was coming.

EXL500
EXL500
27 days ago
Reply to  Jack Trade

2015 Fit EX…it’s sticking around.

Michael Beranek
Michael Beranek
28 days ago
Reply to  Kevin B Rhodes

You’re right about that peak. Enough tech to run great, not enough to be a bother.

LMCorvairFan
LMCorvairFan
28 days ago
Reply to  Jack Trade

Everything back then rattled, clanked
and shook. Only the premium stuff was
Immune like Cadillac, Toronodo, Riviera, Lincoln, New Yorker and Imperial were half way decent. The Japanese and the Europeans were much better IMO.

UnseenCat
UnseenCat
26 days ago
Reply to  LMCorvairFan

Nah, even the premium stuff could rattle. A family member had a 77 Coupe DeVille. It had door rattles straight off the showroom floor. Not terribly loud, thanks to the extra sound-insulating material Cadillac put in, but they were there. Oh, and there was the massive slab of fake-wood plastic on the glovebox door that squeaked every time you closed it.

Kevin B Rhodes
Kevin B Rhodes
25 days ago
Reply to  UnseenCat

For sure – my old man bought an ’85 Olds 98 Regency as a retirement present to himself. Absolutely epic heap of poo. Rattled, squeaked, and never ran right from day 1. And the sad part is they would give us examples of the previous RWD generation as loaners while they tried to figure it out and those turds were WORSE in every possible way. He hated that car so much it ended up being my main ride the first six months I had my license.

Tbird
Tbird
28 days ago
Reply to  Jack Trade

Saw a lot of aerobacks as a kid

Jack Trade
Jack Trade
28 days ago

It’s at least possible! I’m the same guy who used to ask his mom back then “how come we don’t have a Citation X-11??” So, the kinda guy that loves it here in autopia…

Cheap Bastard
Cheap Bastard
28 days ago

Aeroback buyer got, aside from a rear end that resembled a dog defecating”

And the spoiler on the Turbo Coupe looks like its stubby tail.

Chronometric
Chronometric
28 days ago
Reply to  Cheap Bastard

Mercedes channeling Jason to get that simile.

Citrus
Citrus
28 days ago

I sort of like the Aeroback look, though it was also a kind of American Leyland Princess, right down to inexplicably not having a hatchback in spite of looking like it should definitely be a hatchback.

Tbird
Tbird
28 days ago
Reply to  Citrus

The later 4 light A-bodies always looked better to me.

Geoff Buchholz
Geoff Buchholz
28 days ago
Reply to  Tbird

As much as the Aerobacks were a flop, the formal-roof notchbacks that replaced them in 1980 were very handsome— so nice that Chevy and Pontiac ditched their six-light sedans for the design in ‘81.

Nycbjr
Nycbjr
28 days ago

wow TIL…. I had no idea they made turbo versions (or 442) versions of these!

I had a 76 442 (last of the colonades) it was pretty gutless to but fun to drive none the less.

52
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x