Oh, how fickle are the fortunes of man. In 1956, Buick’s model year production of 572,024 cars was good enough for third place in the industry; however, the 1957 and 1958 models ended a decades-long winning streak for those iconoclasts from Flint. A year after the bold and surprising 1959 models, the attractive 1960 Buick was mired near GM’s divisional basement after posting a dismal ninth place in sales; but even if 1960 was a rebuilding year, the cars themselves never showed it.
The 1960 models were transitional for all of General Motors, but it was also the last year for two Buick quirks: the torque tube and accelerator pedal starting. It’s as if Buick decided to ditch any remnant of its former self in time for a fresh decade, although the Dynaflow transmission would hang on through 1963 and the Nailhead engine through 1966. For 1959, Buick had changed the names of its entire model lineup, perhaps in an attempt to turn things around after the aforementioned 1957/’58 selling seasons. Therefore, the bottom-of-the-line LeSabre entered model year number two with revised sheetmetal that was a little less crisp than the ’59, but perhaps less polarizing.
The fins in the rear (and in the front) were rounded off and the traditional portholes returned, resulting in a more conservative appearance, but only by comparison. This particular 1960 Buick is uncommon even by 1960 Buick standards; fewer than 10,000 LeSabre wagons sold in 1960. Most likely, this is the reason that by 1965, the only Buick wagons available were based on the intermediate A-Body.
Even though 1960 might have been a disappointing year for Buick sales, Buick almost always built a good car. Even the base LeSabre was well-appointed and attractive, as entry-level Buicks invariably were. Some speculate that the Buick Special, the LeSabre’s forebear, marked the beginning of the end of the Sloan Ladder. The Special undercut its nearest competitors on price, but it still looked and felt like a Buick, making it one of the keys to Buick’s earlier success.
By the time this basic LeSabre two-door sedan was built, however, almost every automaker was producing “price-leaders,” not to mention luxurious nameplates such as Impala and Bonneville, and so the ladder fell apart. The introduction of the BOP compacts in 1961 would only continue to irrevocably muddle the situation.
Since the future of Buick no longer rested so much on its uniqueness (massive grille, sweepspear, torque tube, Dynaflow, straight-8, etc.) or superior value for the dollar when compared with other makes, it had to enter the 1960s focused on the basics: styling, quality, and taste. The 1960 models were a definite step in that direction, even if the driveline was temporarily rooted in the 1950s.
Aside from the Dynaflow and torque tube, the 1960 Buicks’ powertrain consisted of Nailheads of two displacements: 364 and 401 cubic inches. The Nailhead was another product of Buick’s halcyon days of the early 1950s. It’s general valve layout is unlike almost any 90-degree V8 in the world; it’s not better, it’s just different. Many of Buick’s innovations fall into that category. Paul Neidermeyer probably said it best when he mentioned that Buick, as General Motors’ oldest and once most important brand, was provincial; in other words, they had a longer leash than the other divisions, and they used that autonomy to do things “their way.” It’s just another reason why Buick is my one of my favorite brands.
Regardless of its powertrain, Buick’s encroachment into the lower-price classes with the Special (and LeSabre starting in 1959) could have become another Packard-like tale of failing to read the market had Buick not also focused on its more traditional buyers (and had a corporate monolith to fall back on).
Up at the top of the scale was still the glamorous Electra 225, including this convertible. With one foot still rooted in Buick tradition, the Electra wore four portholes per fender compared to the LeSabre’s three. Buick had been doing that to differentiate their models since the dawn of the porthole in 1949; their most recent attempt at porthole haughtiness was the Buick Lucerne; see this Car & Driver road test from 2006 for details.
Like Big Buicks of old, the Electra and Electra 225 were longer than the LeSabre or mid-line Invicta, and a few strategically placed pieces of extra trim down low made them look even longer, lower, and more expensive than they were.
As always, the extra money bought a glitzier interior, and this Electra even has power windows and bucket seats, which were a 108 dollar option in 1960.
Buick even planned a performance and durability campaign that was never fully exploited by their marketing department. They ran 10,000 miles in 5,000 minutes in a 1960 Invicta, and regardless of your opinion on the Nailhead’s basic design, it’s hard to gainsay its durability. The refueling process alone makes the video worth watching.
As we all know, Buick is still around, although the buyer of a 1960 Buick may not recognize it. Buick maintained an arguable degree of corporate autonomy all the way through 1987 or so, when the last of the Grand Nationals rolled off the line. They never again were truly in the pennant race as they were in the early 1950s, as the 1960s were the decade of Pontiac and the 1970s of Oldsmobile, but they did back away from the precipice of 1957 and 1958 to build some really great cars (not that those models don’t have their fans). These beautiful 1960s were just one step in that direction.
For further reading:
A Celebration Of GM’s ’59 Models – Bats and Deltas, But No 88s by Aaron65
The ’60 LeSabre will forever be Brad Hamilton’s car from Fast Times for me. “Four more payments, gentlemen, and this beautiful blue four door luxury sedan is all mine…”
That lead wagon, though, that’s fabulous. Interesting that it didn’t really sell.
All right, Hamilton! 🙂
Or the Go-Go’s (sigh!) in their red LeSabre convertible:
When I think of the Nailhead I think of ‘TV’ Tommy Ivo’s unsane multi-Nailhead dragsters.
My favorite V8 has always been the first-generation Oldsmobile Rocket, but hoo boy, I sure hope an old Buick finds its way into my world.
-Sold this because it wasn’t a ’59, wish I HADMNT now.
the other side
The 1960 restyle of the slightly weird 1959 was a hit, although it may not have shown in sales. The 1960 version eliminated much of the 1959 weirdness and was a thoroughly pleasing design. Quite interesting was the speedometer, which actually lay flat in the cluster, with an adjustable mirror reflecting it up to the driver.
I know the 1959 still had the starter under the gas pedal. Did this change for 1960?
Nope, 1960 was the last year for that feature. Buicks had their own carburetors with a microswitch that operated the starter.
When I was a kid there was an elderly couple down the street who kept pretty much to themselves. They had a black 59 or 60 Buick sedan, most likely a LeSabre. It was always a thrill watching them back that car out of the garage – it seemed so old and exotic in maybe 1968.
Beautiful cars!
My grandfather loved his Buicks but never owned any pretty Buicks during my lifetime. His cars were always the opposite of what I thought Buicks were supposed to be – interesting and pretty. It just wasn’t in his budget.
I wished he would have considered older cars (cheaper) as an option.
Looked at Buick RegalX wagons this morning online. Nice car at ~$25K and some with 10K miles and less. But not popular wiith Americas and likely far from being promoted enough by GM. Wish I needed a newer car right now.
I’m intrigued by the Buick’s accelerator starter. How, exactly did that work? Was it a forerunner of the start-stop feature that’s now so prevalent on many new cars?
As to Buick, while there were a few boners (Riviera/Somerset fiasco, Reatta), of all the GM divisions, it was the one that seemed to be the best at giving their market what they wanted with nice, conversative, inoffensive styling and competent (if uninspired) driving dynamics. Even their version of the craptacular X-body, the Skylark, which is so maligned as the Citation, seems to be mostly given a pass as a Buick.
Another case in point is the nailhead V8. Certainly nothing special, performance wise, those small valves delivered exactly what was needed in large luxury cars, i.e., a nice, smooth, take-off thanks to making its torque down low.
There was a switch under the gas pedal. When you floored it, the starter engaged.
Once started, a switch on the carb (connected to engine manifold vacuum) opened and interrupted the starter circuit.
You had to be careful not to try to restart too soon after stalling or the starter would grind on the flywheel!
Buicks don’t have a switch under the gas pedal itself (I have a ’53 Special, so I’m familiar with the system). The switch mounted to the carburetor contained the contacts, and there’s a vacuum lockout for the switch so the starter can’t engage with the engine running. There’s also a backup safety feature in the starter wiring itself…the starter relay loses ground after the generator starts charging.
With that being said, you do have to be careful if the engine stalls and your foot’s still pushing on the gas to start it…I’ve ground the flexplate quite a few times. It usually happens after I haven’t started the car for a while.
That’s it! The switch that activated the starter was attached to to the throttle shaft on the carb. not under the gas pedal! The vacuum disconnect was also contained in the same assembly.
I sold my ’50 Buick straight 8 over 30 years ago (yeesh). Thanks for correcting my mistake!
Aaron
Great write up on rarely seen cars. My Uncle had a lovely fire engine red ’60 Invicta convertible that he was trading in on a ’64 Wildcat Convertible in 1964. My Old Man was shopping for a second car for my mother at the same time, but turned the Buick down as being “too flashy” and settled for a white ’62 Corvair Monza with Powerglide. Even though I was only 2 years old at the time, I started having feelings that I might have been adopted and not related in any way to the Old Man. Sad times…
Thanks Dean!
As a Corvair owner and a Buick owner, I’d want the Invicta too, although the Corvair’s not so bad for what it is. It’s fun to drive, at the very least.
The styling on all of the 1960 full-size GM cars was toned down from a year earlier, which in Buick’s case meant softer fins and no more diagonal headlamps. Was there a corporate-wide edict from GM to dial back on the more outrageous flourishes on the ’59s, or did all five GM divisions independently reach the same conclusion, that they needed a more restrained look for the Sixties?
All GM styling was under the very strong control of Styling VP Harley Earl.
Obviously the ’59s had to be toned down; there was no way to tone them up. 🙂
Well, they could have put that dorsel fin on the trunk…
And added the wing and nose of the 1970’s Chrysler ‘wing cars’…
The styling of 1959, and some ’58 and ’60 GM’s was best described as outrageous… and wore out it’s welcome quickly… especially after 1961 and later models came out…
Those yellow license plates above caught my eye as in Ohio yellow plates mean the vehicle owner is a multi-convicted DWI owner/driver to watch out for…
The Buick Nail Head was an inefficient engine as far as making HP goes that needed a larger camshaft to make competitive HP, which gave it a reputation as a gas hog among most buyers… to remedy that somewhat, Buick started sticking with smaller cams for lower RPMs and better MPG and only advertising torque numbers which are basically proportional to cubic inches and which in high compression ratio engines gives a bigger number to use/advertise than HP does in mild street engines… of course, by 1966, Buick finally gave in and went to conventional valve train arrangement on top of its usual shortblocks… which it’s 1950 215″ aluminum V8 already had…
was it the engine or auto transmission that made Buicks “gas hogs”?
I think it was their inefficient but smooth transmissions
There’s an old auto industry adage that says, “Americans talk horsepower, but they drive torque”. This is nowhere truer than with Buick and they actually advertised what people should have really cared about, down to having an engine’s torque rating on the air cleaner instead of the traditional engine size or horsepower rating. I guess it was effective enough since Buick usually seemed to have solid sales figures.
That looks like an antique license plate, which many states allow. But you have to be careful when traveling to another state since it immediately catches the eyes of the cops.
A case in point was the elderly couple from Washington state that was traveling through Nevada in a 1962 Impala with antique plates. A Nevada state trooper pulled them over, mis-entered their information, and it came back as a stolen vehicle. The poor old guy was roughed-up, the car impounded, and he spent the night in jail. Nevada discovered the error, released the guy, and issued an apology. The old guy sued but, to the best of my knowledge, lost in court.
https://news.yahoo.com/highway-patrol-error-results-hellish-roadside-experience-classic-223419826.html
Michigan allows year of manufacture plates, which act (as far as I know…I run regular plates on everything) as historic plates.
Year of manufacture plates are allowed in Michigan, with one exception being the 1984-on blue and white plates. Those require you to have the actual year of the car sticker on them for some reason. I just get the blue on white current historic plates to avoid attention from a particular sector of the motoring public.
It appears that 1960 commercial plates on this car are unique, as the standard passenger car plates were the 1959 yellow on green plates with a yellow metal tag for 1960 attached to the upper right corner.
Aaron – your generous words about Buick make me feel satisfied in having owned many Buicks over the years. I always by far preferred the Buick division of GM. I’ve owned one Chevrolet and zero of any of the others but lots of Buicks.
I’d like to think my last remaining Buick, a ’94 Roadmaster Estate Wagon, is more closely related to the wonderful ’60s than it is to the vehicles currently sold under the “Buick” name.
I think that’s true! Even if your Roadmaster does have a “corporate” LT1, it’s certainly a Buick in spirit, right down to the name. 🙂
your Roadmaster was a Caprice clone and had Chevy engines as I recall
Yes, my Buick has a corporate GM engine. Nothing special mechanically; I don’t really care.
But it looks like a Buick; it was sold to go to a country club or a boat dock. It is big; bigger than the Caprice because it has a raised roof with glass up front. The interior is sumptuous; the leather seating is not Chevy like. And it is a Buick and I can call it a “Buick Roadmaster Estate Wagon”. That’s satisfying.
I’d like to think that when sold my car’s market position was closer to that of the ’60 wagon than a current Enclave/Envision/Encore generic people mover. I think it has Buick genes.
I wonder how many RPMs that car was running at in the video. 120 MPH must have required 4000-5000 perhaps?
Great story.
According to the brochure, the axle ratio for a ’60 Invicta is either 3.07 or 3.23. Those tires must be 30 inches tall. Using a 3.07 gear, I used an online gear calculator, which said that the engine would be turning 4237 RPM. The 3.23 would spin 4457. You’d probably have to add a little for transmission slippage, but I don’t think the Dynaflow is as inefficient in that regard as people think once the car’s in motion. I’d say you’re looking at 4300-4500, right in the Nailhead’s sweet spot.
Aaron, is that wagon a really rare Buick with a stick shift? I well remember the 1960 Buick because our neighbors bought a new 1960 Invicta and I rode to church in it (they also bought a new 1960 Corvair!). It had the most unusual automatic transmission indicator as show in this picture. I don’t see the indicator in the picture of the dash in the wagon here.
What is that handle on the left of the dash for?
Spotlight control.
Thank you! I thought so but assumed that feature was for police cars only.
It is! I just brightened up my interior photo and zoomed in…there’s a clutch pedal there (and no Dynaflow dial). That has to be one of a handful; the wagon’s even cooler now.
I was going to ask the same question but it was already answered.
Without a clear view of a clutch pedal at first glance, since the shift lever is positioned in a horizontal position in pic, rather than a nearly vertical position, it appeared to me to be a manual transmission placed into 1st or 3rd gear while parked.
Most column shift automatics have the ‘Park’ position at a higher position, equivalent to a 1 o’clock position for the little hand on a clock.
If a manual column shift car owner parked their car with the shift lever in 2nd gear or reverse, it would mimic the ‘Park’ position on an automatic.
Cadillacs of the ’70’s had the park position at 1:00. I always thought that looked odd. Most other cars it was at about 2:00, or between 1 and 2. And I remember during that time it was common to park a manual transmission car in reverse. 4 speed cars would be parked in 1st or reverse.
60 Buick has outstanding styling, and while not as wild as 59, it was (IMHO) improved. Here’s a shot of mine, an UNRESTORED example with 12K miles.
Wow! Nice car, Greg.
Those beefy bolts shown in the Daytona video is what these had OE. Beats those spindly studs on some other makes. I think the big Buicks kept 15″ wheels after others (even S-P) went to 14″ in ’57. Not so sure about that bubble balance though. Does anyone use these anymore? Seems kind of crude for Daytona even then.
I have a cheap Harbor freight bubble balancer at home; it actually works well on bias-ply tires. I don’t know if they’d be good to 120 miles per hour, but those guys were probably a lot more experienced than I am at balancing tires.
Were these Buick station wagon bodies built for GM by the Iona Manufacturing Company?
I doubt it very much. Too much is shared with Chevy. Our ’59 Chevy wagon had “Body by Fisher” emblems.
Ionia built the full-size Buick and Oldsmobile station wagons through the 1964 model year, after which they were discontinued for several years in favor of the stretched A-body wagons.
What do you mean by “built”? ’61-’64 GM B bodies may have had more divisional variations. ’59-’60 had most commonality as documented here on CC. Looking at the greenhouse and door openings, it is hard to imagine outsourcing to someone other than Fisher would make sense. Other than the rear quarter and tailgate stampings, the rest would be common with Buick four door sedans,and the greenhouse with Chevy wagons. But, anything is possible. Now, those stretched, glass roof A body wagons would have been a good candidate for outsourcing.
Ionia built all station wagon bodies for Buick and Oldsmobile in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Perhaps due to lower volume for those makes, it made sense for them to outsource production of the wagon bodies. In those days the GM divisions had more autonomy.
“After Detroit’s automakers switched from wooden to metal station wagon bodies, Mitchell continued to supply automakers with station wagon bodies. In 1954, the company produced the Dodge Sierra’s four-door station wagon bodies by lengthening the factory-built two-door bodies; it then built all of Buick’s station wagon bodies from 1954 through 1964 and all of Oldsmobile’s station wagon bodies from 1957 through 1964.”
https://www.hemmings.com/stories/2014/07/09/body-by-ionia-woodies-wagons-and-a-concept-car-among-mitchell-car-museum-liquidation-sale
What do you mean by “built”? ’61-’64 GM B bodies may have had more divisional variations. ’59-’60 had most commonality as documented here on CC. Looking at the greenhouse and door openings, it is hard to imagine outsourcing to someone other than Fisher would make sense. Other than the rear quarter and tailgate stampings, the rest would be common with Buick four door sedans,and the greenhouse with Chevy wagons. But, anything is possible.
Trivia Tidbit:
The car used to smuggle heroin in the “real” French Connection case, upon which the movie was based, was a 1960 Buick Invicta.