The emergence from hibernation of classic cars this spring has been inhibited in Washington, DC and the mid-Atlantic region by weeks of continuous rains worthy of Washington State and the Pacific Northwest, but the few days of fair weather have brought out the annual street and curbside display of drivable classics. Among the usual Mustangs, Corvettes, and other commonly seen muscle machines was a relatively infrequently encountered example: one of Buick’s 1968-72 A-Bodies. A 1971 based on its grille, this Buick from the muscle car era added a rather menacing presence to the common downtown traffic of modern sedans and SUVs.
The 1968-72 Buick Gran Sport has already received attention here for its performance and landmark role in the history of the division, so it is unnecessary to revisit its history here. This car has a GS grille badge and Gran Sport hood scoops but is missing GS emblems from its front fenders and trunk lid, while having Skylark badges on the rear fenders and trunk lid, indicating that it is a Skylark with GS elements added. Not going all the way by adding GS badges all around is a curious omission, given how much easier it would be than changing the hood.
It is possible that the owner wanted to enhance his 1971 Skylark but did not want to create a fake GS, perhaps after front end damage requiring replacement of the grille and hood — a possibility given the misalignment of the hood on an otherwise very straight body. The reflections on the shiny paint on the sides that run perfectly parallel to the pinstripe give an indication of how straight and smooth this car’s body was when viewed in person.
With its twin racing stripes, chrome Buick road wheels with big rear tires, and large dual exhausts, this Skylark looks the part of an early 1970s muscle car, even thought it is not a Gran Sport. It no doubt makes the right noises and gives its owner most if not all of the Gran Sport experience, depending on what lives under the hood and in the transmission tunnel (probably a Buick 350 V8/350 THM). The paint may be a bit rough on the hood and the roof, but those details detract little and likely will be addressed when the owner feels like doing it.
Lightly modified 1968-72 GM A-Bodies similar to this one used to rumble around in large numbers during the 1970s and 1980s, but they usually were Chevelles/SS396s, LeManses/GTOs, or Cutlasses/442s, and in worse condition as 10-20 year old used cars driven hard by young leadfoots. Today, with all of them more than 40 years old, the survivors still roaming the streets are usually those same models, over-restored or restomodded with huge custom wheels. Skylarks/Gran Sports were relatively uncommon during the prime of this kind of car and now are even rarer. Spotting one curbside in the 2010s is an infrequent occurrence that I cannot recall having in many years, and this one was a pleasant throwback to an earlier time. It would have been even better if I had been able to hear the engine start up and ask what was under the hood, but alas the owner never appeared.
In an automotive world consisting increasingly of good-for-you hybrids and CUVs, examples of which were conveniently parked around the subject car, many of us can use an occasional dose of something that tastes great even if it is bad for you. This Buick’s owner appears to have had two in one day, a drive in his 1971 muscle car and dinner at a downtown all you can eat Brazilian steakhouse, Fogo de Chao, where you can consume as much high quality beef in one sitting as you desire. I am certain that he had what most of us here would consider to be a very good day, with plenty of Buick muscle and plenty of beef.
Related Reading:
Curbside Classic: 1970 Buick GS Sport Coupe — The Strong, Silent Type
Curbside Classic: 1969 Buick Skylark Custom — No, It’s Not A Chevelle…
Robert, This car looks so right to my eyes. Steel bumpers front and rear, dual exhausts, great green color, big tires, and no post hardtop. I also like the way you analyzed the badging and determined it most probable heritage.
I’m not insisting that the “good old days” were always good, but they certainly had their moments.
This generation of A bodies had great proportions, especially the coupes. All of them look great, but this is a particularly nice example (with just the right wheels and tires on it).
I agree, these are great cars. I drove a 1969 Cutlass S coupe for a few years around 1980. It had been ridden hard and put away wet by its prior owner, but it was one tough car and served us well. The Olds 350 always started with the slightest blip of the key. I don’t recall driving a more sturdy & solid-feeling car before or since. We sold it to its next owner with about 120,000 miles, which was considered high mileage at the time.
Wow, it’s interesting to see that Skylark next to that Civic. The Civic’s *got* to be shorter and narrower, right? But it looks to be similarly sized to the Skylark. Do my eyes deceive me?
According to wikipedia….
Civic – wheelbase:105.1 length:178.1 width:69.1 height:56.5
Skylark – wheelbase:112 length:201.9 width:76.2 height:54.3
The Skylark is larger in every dimension except height… it’s crazy how the space utilization and overall proportions of new cars make them seem bulkier and fatter, while still being smaller. The Civic also weighs 2600-2800 lbs, while the Skylark is around 3500.
This is the thing, everyone automatically thinks newer cars are smaller, but…because they are taller and thicker, in essence they aren’t smaller at all. The physical area is the same , just positioned differently. Unfortunately, to my eyes anyway, the short overhangs combined with the too thick sides and too tall tail ends new cars have, makes for terrible proportions visually. Even that CRV looks big and fat compared to the Buick.
Recent Civics certainly look porky compared to those of its 1st three decades. The high beltline & esp. the long wheelbase contribute to the illusion of large size compared to the Buick, but Honda put it to good use, with rear space comparable to old Detroit compacts instead of the original’s rear torture chamber. And they finally flattened the floor, at least in back.
The Buick has appealing lines. My mother had an unfulfilled yen for the Cutlass instead.
The 1968-72 GM A cars, while riding on the same 114-115″
wheelbase since 1964, some how don’t look as ‘biggish’
to me as the 1973-77 colonnades that succeeded them.
I don’t know if it’s the proportions, or what. In fact, I was
surprised that the 68-72s rode such a long wheelbase!
My 2-door 71 Chevelle ‘looked’ small compared to a Malibu
of the colonnades era. The 64-67 Velles and Skylarks
also seemed bigger.
The ’68-’72 2-doors were all on a 112-inch wheelbase. The 4-doors’ wheelbase was 116″.
the 64-67 A bodies used a 115″ wheelbase. It was shortened (in part) due to a weird harmonics issue that occurred around 60-70 mph on every A-body. Anyone that has owned one is familiar with that weird hummmmm.
1964 A body cars are substantially smaller (but lower ) than the 1970+ models. My bff growing up had a 68′ Malibu (327 powerglide) and we would park our cars next to each other all the time. The malibu hood, roof and decklid were noticeably up higher than on my car. Visibility out of the rear window was not nearly as good either.
I’m partial to the 64-67 body style because my first car was a 65 Cutlass
Structural oscillation of some sort?
Yeah, I know about the ’68-72 coupes
being on a slightly shorter WB than sedans
and wagons, but 112(I did see 114 for the
2drs somewhwere) doesn’t seem a whole
lot shorter. Did not know those A-bodies
were much taller than the preceding
generation. Guess that’s why they seemed
shorter to me.
I am partial to ’64 A body cars especially the Chevelle and Tempest bodies. The short front overhang just looks better to me, like the ’68 Nova. Also makes for a better handling car.
My all time favorite car is a 67′ GTO. One of these days I am going to pick up another Cutlass but am going to have to get a a lil further with my Electra before that happens.
FYI Cutlass and Skylarks are available on ebay/craigslist for significantly less money than Chevelles and especially goats. I’m talking actual 442’s and GS for the same price as 307 powerglide bench seat Chevelles. Two years ago I kept trying to get a hold of a guy that had a clean 67′ Cutlass supreme with a 455 and AC for 5k. 10k buys you a ton of BOP A body value.
Great find! I always thought that Buick did a really nice job when styling its 1970-72 A body. But they never sold in anywhere near the numbers of the others. My mother looked at a Skylark in 1972, but ended up with a Cutlass Supreme. It never really occurred to me how different the Olds rooflines were (both on regular and Supreme) from the Chevy-Pontiac-Buick brethren.
That’s one reason why I’ve always like the fastback coupe Olds more than the other 3. The others all have essentially the same profile roofline, but the Olds is more of a true fastback in profile. It also (68-69 especially) is so much smoother looking. I always used to think that the Olds was so much of a fastback that for 70-72 they made a notchback version, much as Ford did with Mustangs or Torinos, or GM did with their full sizers a few years previous. Of course, Olds was really just cashing in on the Monte Carlo’s newly created market.
I agree the Old’s did the 68-72 bodystyle the best. Even if you weren’t hip to the fastback cars the more formal roofed Supremes were very classy looking cars.
Hmm, steak and a vintage Buick and die early or a Hybrid or CUV and Kale juice and live forever… Perhaps longer human lifespans aren’t all they’re cracked up to be.
Love the color and the road wheels on it, could do without the stripes though. These 70 -72s are my favorite of all the A body Buicks but one thing that always bugged me about them is their relative lack of distinction; the 68-69s looked a bit ungainly to my eyes but they certainly looked like a Buick, and looked totally different from the Chevelle, Tempest, Cutlasses besides basic profile. The 70 got a more brawny look, including ditching the semi-skirted rear wheel opening, the side sweep, and even reshaping the quarter window(odd considering Olds and Pontiac carried theirs over), the end result is, again to my eyes, a much more attractive car, BUT it’s very easy to mistake it for a Chevelle from the side, in fact the quarter window appears to be identical to the Chevy.
What makes you think steak is bad for you? That theory was debunked years ago. Carbs are the problem, if anything.
Umm, I was being facetious, and I was responding directly to the last section of the article.
In an automotive world consisting increasingly of good-for-you hybrids and CUVs, examples of which were conveniently parked around the subject car, many of us can use an occasional dose of something that tastes great even if it is bad for you. This Buick’s owner appears to have had two in one day, a drive in his 1971 muscle car and dinner at a downtown all you can eat Brazilian steakhouse, Fogo de Chao, where you can consume as much high quality beef in one sitting as you desire.
Chew, chew,…got it! (he says in between bites of a medium rare roast beef lunch sandwich). Seriously. 🙂
Isn’t that the truth. For almost 40 years I ate a diet heavily weighted towards meat, lots of times over a pound per meal. The standing joke among my friends was I used to bring a 12-14″ round steak to bring your own meat BBQ. Weighed the same weight for all those years. Since I lost my teeth and not able to wear dentures(another story)my diet has become carb heavy and have gained almost 40 lbs. Also a factor might be that I gave up smoking around the same time. Tried eating less, one meal a day but still have not been able to loose the weight. Not obese but I do have belly.
Your eyes do not deceive you, The entire roof, including the glass is the same as the Chevelle, as is the panel between the rear window and trunk lid, and the trunk lid itself. The 70-72 Buick A body used the same trunk lid as the 68-72 Chevelle. I actually never knew this until 1977, when I worked in a body shop, and a customer brought in a 72 Skylark that had been in a minor rear collision. He had replaced the rear bumper and trunk lid and was wanting the trunk painted to match the rest of the car. The trunk lid had come from a 1970 Chevelle, judging by the 70 only Misty Turquiose color and the Chevelle by Chevrolet nameplate in the right corner.
I actually really prefer the 68-69 Skylarks because of the high level of distinction. Even if some of the details are a bit fussy, you can’t mistake that side sweep for anything else, and with road wheels and white letter tires, they can still look plenty mean. These 70-72s are clean, but not well enough distinguished from a Chevelle.
I’d take this over anything Buick makes today. Very nice
I like this, those Buick chrome wheels really work on the Skylark. Amazing how many there used to be around, nice to see one getting used.
And being a midsize car there’s not too much beef. A fellow Engineer and I were once dining at a famous restaurant in Missouri (yes, there is one) and Dave ordered the steak, which came overlapping the platter it was served on. I asked him how it was and he said “I would like a steak that is one quarter the size of this, and four times the quality.”
I take it you are talking about Lambert’s Café? It’s likely the only restaurant in the known universe to purchase the Cadillac dealer next door so they could tear it down and expand the restaurant.
Gosh, you almost make it sound like we in Missouri are hard-pressed for notable cuisine. 🙂
Lambert’s claim to fame is throwing rolls at their patrons. I’d say Missouri is hard pressed! 😉
Oh, you have crushed my spirit.
I’ve eaten at Numbers 2, 4, 9, 17, and 19.
http://www.onlyinyourstate.com/missouri/bucket-list-restaurants-mo/
Well, you’re the one that mentioned it by name Jason. I was trying to be kind. 🙂
We found some great food in the bootheel, but I only ate at Lambert’s once for the experience. Those roll throwers can put one right in your palm from 50 feet away.
Lambert’s goes for quantity over quality in some regards. Thinking about it, I was last there about the same time you were.
You might be interested to know that there is a Lambert’s Café in Foley, Alabama, in addition to the ones in Missouri. The same premise of course but the roll throwers weren’t quite as accurate, at least when I was there a couple of years ago.
You couldn’t give me a 68 or 69 Skylark….except maybe a wagon, and even that would be a tough sell, but ANY 2 door Skylark/Regal from 1970 to 1977? I’ll gladly take 1 from any year, though the 73 or 74s are my favorites.
My sister has a 1970 Malibu that’s this color combo but with a white vinyl roof instead of the stripes. It’s a nice driving car, even though it only has a 307 and Powerglide.
In the Buick world, they call the ’68s and ’69s “stepchildren.”
I actually have a little experience with them; when I was 20 or 21, I spent a summer welding quarters on my uncle’s ’69 Special Deluxe, and for being a novice, I think they turned out pretty well.
My buddy’s neighbor had an army green ’69 Special wagon with minimal rust that he drove often. His estate (I believe) sold it when I was probably in my teens. I didn’t think much of it then but I’d probably buy it these days.
Buick did seem to drop the ball on the ’68-’69 Skylark. I never did warm to that big, long, downward side-sweep. The intermediates from every other division were a whole lot better looking.
That changed in 1970 when Buick finally caught up. And, for my money, the Buick colonnade topped the others, as well, when it arrived in 1973. It wasn’t until the rectangular headlight cars showed up that the styling pendulum swung back to the other divisions. It would come back to Buick (for the last time) with the final iteration of the turbocharged V6 RWD Grand National.
Wow, I’m in the minority here! I think these 70-72 models look so bland. While Pontiac and Olds differentiated the basic A-Body shell well, these just look like rebadged Chevelles. I hate “bumper taillights” too. The ’68-69 may have been a bit out-there and may not have flown as well as the larger Buicks but I think it is much more visually interesting than these.
I love these Buicks. Two years ago while in London on holiday I spotted this extraordinary CC near Grosvenor Square.
20/20 hindsight – I’d go back to the 70’s – early 80’s and snap up muscle cars. No one wanted them then.
I’d drive this, fake or no. Though I’d prefer a 4-speed.
Awesome find and post, Robert. These 1970 – ’72 Buick A-bodies just look so right to me – just the right ratio of curves to creases. As for this example itself, I love it as-is: the wheels, the color, condition, non-matching hood and badges, and so on. Instant nostalgia trip. I was a little late in getting to high school by the late 80’s for these to be plentiful (there were way more Colonnades in my high school parking lot), but I remember one or two of these early-70’s A-bodies in the student population.
My first car was a 68 A-body Pontiac LeMans – but they’re all great, including this Buick love Buicks.
But my question is this: I know a lot of CC followers don’t like current designs, BUT is the Avista (below) really so terrible? It’s one current Buick I wish they’d produce -the DNA successor to today’s CC?
The Avista concept is a stunner. The Avenir concept was quite spectacular, too. But even these will illicit the same old complaints from some enthusiasts of older cars… “The belt line is too high, the wheels are too big…” etc etc. But I’ll tell ya, if they put the Avista to production it would be a fantastic halo. And I’d much prefer a production Avista to a Camaro. Athletic AND elegant.
This generation of A bodies is my favorite…..The Collonade generation that many of the A body nameplates would morph into looked bloated and heavy in comparison….. A 72 and 73 Chevelle were worlds apart from each other.