It seems a bit odd for Buick to use the little 300 cubic inch V8 (derived from the aluminum 215 V8) in their very-much full-size LeSabre when the cheaper Pontiac Catalina came standard with a husky 389 V8 and even the wimpy Olds Jetstar 88 had a 330 V8. That’s only 17 cubic inches more than a 283 Chevy Impala, where a 327 was just a few bucks more. Presumably Buick knew that its target buyers weren’t so much looking at performance as other traditional Buick qualities. And with the base 210hp 300 V8 and the two-speed ST-300 automatic, that was the reality, performance-wise.
But for those looking for a bit of a sharper edge on their ‘Sabre , there was the “400” option package, which included a 250 hp four-barrel version of the 300 V8 teamed with the excellent ST-400 (Turbo Hydramatic). It’s not exactly common for a transmission to give its name to a car trim level, but in this case it rather deserved it.
CL notes that the LeSabre is for folks who really want a big Buick without a big engine. Well, that’s something of a long tradition, going back to the popular Special back in the forties and early fifties that used a small-block straight eight and then a smaller displacement version of the “nailhead” V8 in some years afterwards. But by 1962, the 401 nailhead was the smallest V8 available on the LeSabre, and it seemed to be going the way of the other mid-priced GM brands with large base engines.
Then in 1964, when the 300 inch iron-block (but still aluminum head) V8 arrived, it became the base engine in the LeSabre. The 400 package was obviously designed to give the LeSabre a bit more punch as befitting its brand, so the new THM-400 was teamed with it along with a four barrel carb and higher compression ratio.
Even though the 300 V8 lost its aluminum heads and intake manifold in 1965, it was still exceptionally light, thus Buick saw fit to substitute cast iron finned drums on the brakes instead of the finned aluminum drums (with cast iron liner) used on the other big Buicks. That’s still drastically better than what Olds did with its similar Jetstar 88, by installing the little drums used on the mid-sized F-85/Cutlass. The LeSabre achieved mediocre a deceleration rate but at least the big 12″ drums were quite fade resistant.
CL notes that the big Buicks switched to the now-standard perimeter frame for 1965 (except the Riviera, which kept the X-Frame through 1970). But they made a major mistake by claiming that the longer 126″ wheelbase Wildcat and Electra got its additional 3″ of length by repositioning the rear axle on the same frame and within the same rear wheel openings. Hello? I know that was done to get maybe an inch of variation on some Ford and Chrysler cars, but 3″ would have been highly visible. As this LeSabre (top) and Wildcat (bottom) coupes clearly show, the Wildcat and Electra had a longer front end, where that extra 3″ of wheelbase resided. It was Pontiac that got a few extra inches in the rear for its Star Chief and Bonneville lines, but even they pushed the wheel opening back too. A rather embarrassing mistake by CL.
CL does rightly point out that—unlike common perception—these perimeter frames were designed to be flexible and that the stiff self-supporting body structure provided the actual torsional stiffness, not the frame, which was relegated mostly to carrying the engine and front suspension and the rear suspension. And contrary to popular belief, the former X-Frame was actually a very stiff frame, unlike the perimeter frames.
The new suspension design was intended to reduce harshness and enhance the ride quality. CL noted that the LeSabre’s handling and stability “is at least as good as Buicks we’ve tested before”.
The 300 V8 was exceptionally light, weighing only 466.6 lbs, as compared to 560 lbs for the Olds 330 V8, 596 for the Pontiac 326, and 534 lbs for the Chevy 327. This reduced front end weight, always a good thing, although the LeSabre still weighed 4262 lbs. The three-speed THM-400 was the key ingredient in allowing the little V8 to make the most of its potential, the result being “reasonably brisk performance”. Actually, its tested 0-60 time of 9.2 seconds is quite good, right in the same ballpark as many of the bigger engine cars. No need to apologize in that regard, although presumably it took a bit more revs to achieve that than a bigger engine.
The ’64 version of the 300 V8 still had aluminum heads and intake manifold, eliminating any bimetallic electrolytic reaction in the coolant, an issue that had created problems, probably quite similar to the ones that had plagued the all-aluminum 215 V8. The new 1965 cast iron heads also had larger valves and improved gas passages.
The regular LeSabre came with a three speed manual as standard; a Muncie four speed manual was optional (undoubtedly a rare sight) as well as both the ST-300 automatic or the THM-400, both with switch-pitch torque converters. Given the mere $21 more that the THM-400 cost versus the ST-300, it was deemed a bargain. In these heavier cars, especially with the smaller engine, the additional intermediate gear mad a substantial difference. CL wondered why the ST-300 was even still available on the LeSabre.
The general feel of the car showed that Buick was continuing to make progress in the overall quality of workmanship, materials and engineering.
But there were a few debits in the ledger too: the sweeping semi-fastback roof created blind spots, the huge doors were heavy and awkward to handle, and CL felt that maybe Buick seemed to have somehow managed to get the instrument panel upside down, with the key instruments very low and out of the normal lines of sight while various knobs for lights and such were in a band across the top, not down low where one usually expected them. Both were the opposite of what was obvious and natural. It was another slave-to-flashy-design thing, like so many others back then. Ergonomics? What’s that?
Among other items on the long options list was a “speed minder”; when the pre-selected speed was exceeded, a harsh buzzer went off. Just like all cars in Japans used to do when exceeding 100 km/h. Given the very low speedometer mounting, it may have been a handy gadget, along with cruise control.
In summation, the quality materials and fine workmanship of the LeSabre was perfect for those that wanted a luxury image at a budget price. That had precisely been the formula that had driven Buick sales rapidly higher in the fifties with its Special, so it was a familiar formula, the difference being that full size cars were in a long-term secular decline. By the mid-sixties, many found smaller and sportier cars to be more appealing, but then all those Buick drivers from the fifties did need something new from time to time. The LeSabre fit the bill.
Related CC reading:
Curbside Classic Lite: 1967 Buick LeSabre 400 Sedan – That Does Not Mean a 400 Engine, Oddly Enough
Curbside Classic: 1965 Buick Wildcat – Sabre Tooth Cat Or Dodo Bird?
Buick often trailed Oldsmobile when it came to cubic inches. The Olds small engine of the 60’s was the 330 vs. the Buick’s 300. This was even true in the 50’s when Buick offered a 364 to Oldsmobile’s 371. I always wondered if this was why Buick put the torque output on its air cleaners instead of cubic inches, as most other manufacturers did.
In those days and up until the 1980s my grandparents were loyal Buick buyers, in large part because they claimed that comparable Oldsmobiles were gas guzzlers. I suspect the slightly larger Rocket V-8 and the heavier foot of more performance oriented Olds buyers were responsible for whatever real gap existed between otherwise very similar cars.
Thank you for posting the side shots of the LeSabre and the Wildcat; even as an inveterate Buick guy, I had no idea that the front end of the Wildcat was longer. The compact experiment really put Buick at a disadvantage when it came to small V8s (in my opinion). By designing a compact, light engine with limited displacement, there was no way to get a bore center that would allow for the easy cubic inches of the other GM divisions. The 340 wasn’t introduced until ’66, and it had a bore and stroke of 3.75″ (same as the 300) and 3.85″ (the 300’s stroke was 3.4″). The valve sizes were the same on the 340, as well, so breathing wasn’t improved. The 350 came along in ’68 with improved breathing, but that’s as far as that engine could apparently go as far as cubic inches were concerned (they added another .05″ to the 300/340’s bore and used the 340’s stroke).
Regarding the dashboard, Buick must have heard a lot of complaints; it was significantly changed for ’66. Here’s a picture of a ’66 Wildcat GS dash.
The Wildcat and Electra have the same longer front clip. This had been going on at Buick for quite a long time.
They were kind of stuck with that small bore center spacing. It’s the key cost element to building engines (transfer lines) and once the tooling had been bought (for the aluminum 215) they just had to make the most of it.
Interesting that they called it the Buick LeSabre “400”. Even though it had a 300 in it.
There were Mopars in the 60s named ‘440’ that did not have……. a 440 Lol
As I pointed out, it was clearly a reference to the new ST-400 (THM-400) transmission.
Paul, thank you for featuring this often forgotten Buick. I’ve owned my 67 coupe since 2010. The complete off frame restoration has been an educational experience on its’ design, good build quality and history. It was ordered with all the 400 options, but not badged as such. Buick really didn’t promote their “lowest -priced- big car” very much. The Special and the Skylark (and their wagon versions) were the stars in every piece of sales literature and only one ad “New Smoothie” features it. CL also doesn’t mention the split drive shaft – center carrier bearing setup and its’ benefits, but they are dead on in stating that the LeSabre is a “budget priced, conservative luxury automobile”. The exact placement of the extra 3″ forward of the cowl on the Electra and Wildcat is a bit of a mystery to me. The fenders behind the wheels are longer but when I updated my steering column to a Comfort Tilt from an Electra, it’s the same length as the original and bolted right up.
I can’t explain that, about the steering column. I’m not familiar enough with the guts of them, but it’s a bit surprising. Although, now that I think about, steering columns are expensive to manufacture; I’m guessing there must have been something about the steering box and linkage to make it as cheap as possible to get the extra 3″ in the front with as many of the same components as possible.
I believe you’re correct. One of the hard brake lines that I replaced was shipped to me marked ” full size Buick” and it was too long so somewhere after the steering box 3″ is hiding!
And carrying on from William Stopford’s rerun yesterday, a conservative luxury car with a budget price tested in 2-door hardtop form.
At the time it was the best selling body style in everything short of full-size and I wonder if it was for these big cars too once fleet sales were deducted.
What did that 327 weigh?
Oops; typo. It should be 534 lbs. as per the article. Fixed now.
Quite “crowded’, under that hood. (especially for a “mid 60’s”) ride.
Not so much in person. My 67 has the same body shell. Only a little tight on the a/c compressor side and below the alternator with the darn distributor.
Makes sense! Our “65 Chevy” had so much space around the little motor when the hood went up. One wonders how it ever got warm in the winter?
When a brand noted for large luxurious rides, sees challenges in the form of the Mustang as their sister brands are designing non-economy compact cars, it is reasonable to consider how to keep their traditionally sized offerings popular. By 1965, Buick was not yet four years past it’s time on death row. The same guys who were just years earlier, on the verge of being axed, were now watching their full size line sales like they had back in the dark days of 1960. We all know how crazy competition was within GM.
This is one of their ways to keep that traditional line of profitable cars selling. In 1965, they were only a decade away from doing this very thing across their lines – putting small engines in large cars. This article didn’t know this, but instead, compared this new car to the Buicks from a decade before. What Buick needed in 1955 wasn’t what it needed in 1965 and what was needed in 1965, wasn’t needed in 1975, and so on until 2025.
The idea of having a full sized car with a small V8 was a good move. It might not have been popular in 1965, but the Buick guys were indeed doing their homework for the future. A very interesting offering which shows a very interesting insight.
That instrument panel, however, was a flat-out fail and obviously so the moment it was designed. Really dumb.
Didn’t Car Life road tests usually come with a data panel showing prices, weights, measurements, acceleration and mileage, etc.?
This would have been a great choice for a shrewd full-size car buyer who just had to have a Buick. 9.2 seconds to 60 is enough power for most practical purposes. However, I’d expect the cheapskates (make that thrifty buyers) who’d be in the market for a base-model Buick would have objected to having to use premium gas all the time–which you surely would with an 11:1 compression ratio!
The same engine would have been even better in a Skylark, but then you’d have been stuck with the two-speed not-Powerglide, I guess.
Also, I think I would have tried to wheedle some of the aluminum front brake drums out of the dealer in lieu of floor mats or a tissue dispenser. They wouldn’t have helped actual stopping power or control, but it would have had an additional margin of safety in mountain driving or trailer towing.
Yes it did. I left it out accidentally. It’s there now.
Thanks! 15-18 mpg in normal driving is pretty good, too, in this class.
It’s a common misprint in period materials, but the ’65 all-iron 300 four barrel didn’t have 11:1 compression like the ’64 model (with aluminum heads). The compression ratio in the factory manuals was listed at 10.25:1, but that was certainly not reality. I’ve never cc’d a factory head (I own cars with 300s and 401s), but everything I’ve read has said that 9.5:1 was more like it.
With steel-shim head gaskets, I had to run 93 octane in my ’65 Skylark with the 300 four barrel, but since I switched to slightly thicker composite gaskets, I can run 89. My car is kind of a worst-case scenario for octane tolerance – it has tall gears, a two-speed automatic, and 115,000+ miles on its original engine. It would only ever ping on a full-throttle 1-2 shift (at about 70 mph). I run a lazy timing curve (pretty much factory) for that reason, because I’m not out for peak performance, and an extra 50 cents off a gallon to run 89 octane is a good tradeoff for me.
Interesting. We often focus on exaggerated horsepower, but I didn’t know there was that much variation from advertised compression ratio. My ‘64 Lincoln supposedly had 10.1:1 compression, but it ran fine on 89 octane.
Oh, I think the horsepower is exaggerated on the 300 four barrel, as well. 🙂
The only difference between the 210-horsepower version and the 250 was the four-barrel and higher compression (the 210 was rated at 9:1; the piston had a larger dish). The heads and cam were the same. For the sake of argument, the rated horsepower difference between a two-barrel and four-barrel Ford 289 (carb and compression only) was only 25 horsepower.
Oh, I think the horsepower is exaggerated on the 300 four barrel, as well.
FWIW, here’s the performance stats for this LeSabre and a ’67 Mustang with the 4-barrel 225 hp 289 with a 4-speed stick:
Mustang: 0-60 in 9.7; 1/4 mile: 17.4 @84 mph; Weight: 2980 lbs
LeSabre: 0-60 in 9.2; 1/4 mile: 17.1 @85 mph; Weight: 4180 lbs
Seems improbably for the 1200 lbs heavier LeSabre to be quicker than the Mustang. Maybe that 250 hp rating was conservative? 🙂
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/vintage-reviews/1960s-vintage-reviews/vintage-rt-comparison-1967-mustang-barracuda-and-camaro-the-pony-car-showdown/
Car Life also ran a ’65 Skylark with the 250-horse 300 in its April 1965 issue, and it only trapped 79 mph versus the LeSabre’s 83. The two-speed would account for the slower quarter-mile ET, but not the trap speed. In fact, the Skylark should have trapped higher theoretically, since the ST300 took less power to turn. Just for the sake of comparison, in the same month Car Life tested a 225-horse Mustang that trapped 84 mph.
Either way, there were apparently some reasonable variances in vehicle condition, testing conditions, and driving. Obviously, both engines were overrated by today’s standards (and probably even by gross horsepower standards – the NHRA reclassified the 225-horse 289 down to something like 205). Forty horsepower just seems like a lot for a carb change and a point and a half of compression.
Still as fast as the lighter 4-speed Mustang. Hmm…
The 2-speed in Buicks was not a Powerglide. It was, as Paul has stated, the ST300 and it was used widely in Pontiac Tempests/GTOs, and Olds Cutlasses as well. It was a decent tranny, especially with the Buick switch-pitch torque converter.
I believe they changed that IP for 1966. I know the 1967 Buicks had a nice linear dashboard. Unfortunately, they changed that one again in 1968 to a more square IP. Didn’t like it as well as the 1967 dash.
The ’68 Buicks had thumb wheel HVAC controls that were annoyingly slow to adjust. Skylark had them, too. The dashes were better padded than the earlier ones, so hopefully safer.
GM really hit a home run with the styling of the 1965 large cars. The featured LeSabre coupe shows this very nicely. For Buick, it marked the start of the W-shaped front and rear ends, particularly noticeable in plan view. Although as many have pointed out, that instrument panel in the ’65 Buicks was a fail.
Ford among others made a big deal out of the supposed deficiencies of the X-frame, but the reality is that having frame rails out toward a car’s body sills didn’t significantly improve side impact protection in body-on-frame cars, especially in 2-vehicle crashes, where the intruding vehicle overrides the door sills and simply smashes into the relatively weak door and pillar structures of the time.
Even much more recently, when the IIHS tested the Ford Crown Victoria in a side impact crash, the body is simply shoved off the frame rails as seen in this postcrash photo after the doors were removed (I added the arrow pointing to the essentially undamaged frame siderail):
Reading the article I was really surprised at the weight difference between the Buick 300 c.i. V8 and the Oldsmobile 330 c.i. engine as I believe they were both derived from the 215c.i. Buick aluminum V8. The weight of the Buick engine was 460 lbs., the Oldsmobile was 560 lbs. Anybody know the reason for the weight difference?
The Olds 330 was not derived from the Buick 215. It’s the smallest displacement member of the Olds GenII family, which includes the 400, 425, 455 and 350. These are all much physically larger and heavier than the small Buick V8.
I’m amazed at the low weight of the 300 even with iron heads and manifolds, and the ’64 would have been even lighter. Wonder what casting tech they used to do it as I believe lost foam came later, and used mainly with aluminum?
The quality observations were interesting, they sure fell off the wagon a short 6 yrs later.
Excellent overview of the ’65 B body Buicks!! One of my best friends has 3 very nice Buicks that he’s restored himself : ’65 Wildcat, ’67 Riv GS, and ’75 Electra, and he’s told me the ’65 would be the last one he’d part with.
Thinwall casting technique was improving rapidly at this time. The Ford Windsor V8 (289,302, 2tc.) came out in 1962 and weighed 460 lbs, even a bit less than this Buick 300. I should have added that one to the comparison.
@CANG- I love the reference to the Comfort Tilt steering wheel! I thought only Chevrolet used that name.
(Comfortilt seems like the spelling at one time)
Chevy also offered Comfortron!
Dad had a 67 LeSabre 400 convertible. He bought that after his 62 Buick Invicta was stolen.
We only had the LeSabre a few years before he was rear ended and the insurance company totaled it. Sad, really as he like both those cars