Skylark is one of those names that probably wouldn’t sell today no matter what it would be attached to, however back in 1965 it was a different story for Buick. Introduced for 1964 as a separate model line as opposed to merely a trim level previously, this example is a second year model. Skylark was available in a multitude of forms (two door coupe, hardtop, convertible, and four door thin pillared sedan – the hardtop four door came later) and powered from mild to fairly wild in the Gran Sport versions (which were first available in mid-1965). This one was produced in the first week of April and the color started life as Turquoise Mist.
A total of 22,239 of the V-8 powered four door sedan were produced with a further 96 as crated knocked down chassis compared to only 3,385 with the V6. That makes this the most common version except for the two door sport coupe variant, also with a V8, which outsold it by more than 2:1. Long gone, those days are. The engine in this case was the 300 cu.in. V8 known as the Wildcat 310 backed by the two-speed ST300 transmission.
My mother’s beloved 1963 Chevy II Nova was destroyed in a garage fire in early 1968. Dad took the insurance check and put it toward a very clean, low-mileage 1965 Skylark 4-door sedan. It served faithfully until it was replaced by a 1973 Volvo 144. That change had to do more with the “energy crisis” and Buick’s advancing age than with its serviceability. The Skylark was the first car I drove, albeit in a parking lot. Naturally, when it came time to apply the brakes I overdid it and almost put my father and myself into the windshield.
I really like the roof on the 1964 and 1965 Skylark and Cutlass 2-door hardtops. It differs from the Chevelle/Malibu and Tempest/Lemans. It is formal yet sporty at the same time.
My grandma gave me a 71 Buick Skylark Custom when I turned 16. I LOVED that car. 350 V8. It hauled balls. 2 door, hardtop, bench seat.
A high school friend’s father found a nice clean 1971 or ’72 Skylark 4-door hardtop for his son to drive in the late ’70s. It was the quintessential “Aunt Mabel” car: low miles, clean as a whistle, usual options; air conditioning (this was Texas), power steering, AM radio, and a vinyl top (probably an up-sale by the sales person). The car had a 350 Buick engine with a 2-bbl carburetor but we didn’t know what rear axle it had. It wasn’t a drag-strip champ for sure but it did have an incredible top speed. It would easily bury the needle on the 120 mph speedometer (no telling how accurate it was though). As I remember it rode pretty smoothly too.
Those exhaust manifolds are worth something if that car’s still around. I hoard them because they’re prone to cracking. There are actually a lot of parts on that car that are worth something to ’65 Skylark owners – the taillights and center emblem, parking light housings, etc.
Do you mind posting the name of the yard so I can let the Buick boards know? (…or even just emailing me?)
It’s Cheyenne Auto and Metal in Cheyenne, WY, a mainly self-service yard but they’d likely be capable of getting what you’d want, it’s a smaller independent operation. This car is in their “vintage” section, hasn’t moved in several years, while the normal stuff turns over on a more regular basis. Those pictures are several months old but I’d wager nothing has changed on that car at all. Prices on the old stuff are different than the normal price list, it’s probably best to call and ask for the owner, not just whoever answers the phone. He’s a decent guy.
Thanks Jim!
I bought the GS Slylark back when it first came out in April. $3,700 cash. I put the Two 4s that was on the Rivera, Hurst shifter, 3.73 posi traction, with headers and cutouts. 13.12 quarter mile. It was so much fun.
Soon as I saw so many parts that appear to be in good/useable condition I immediately thought of you wanting to go and grab those items like the taillights and emblems.
Geez, that looks like you could put on wheels, steering wheel and windshield and drive that one out of there.
Is that our next CC meetup activity?
Yeahbut it’s missing the accelerator pedal too. I think you’re right though, just giver some gas and away she ran!
“This car finished with Magic Mirror acrylic lacquer” seems too wordy.
That’s an interesting body tag. This car was built in Fremont, California, and they were the only plant (AFAIK) to use a body tag with accessory numbers like this one. My Flint-built car doesn’t have the “Magic Mirror” text on it, and the option codes are broken out by “groups.”
Is that what the BF is? I thought B was for Baltimore but couldn’t figure out the F or what the two-letter combo was, my “source” didn’t explain that.
And that’d be the Tesla plant now I suppose.
The Magic Mirror tag line is the same as what was on the Corvairs. The whole tag is pretty much the same, from Fisher Body, but there was a TON of variability in what info showed up, different from plant to plant, as well as the meaning, i.e. the codes seem inconsistent, seeming to use different codes to sometimes mean the same thing in different places.
The Corvair’s not at home right now or I’d run out and check, but I’m not sure if it has the Magic Mirror tagline or not; I don’t think it does. I wonder if they phased it out during the ’65 model year and Fremont still used them for some reason.
I just did a quick search of assembly plants to figure out it was Fremont; they couldn’t have made too many Skylarks there, as the 65GS.com website doesn’t even show it as an assembly plant, and ’65 Skylarks are their specialty. I just recently decoded the options on my Skylark using the body tag and everything lined up, but I don’t think anyone’s cracked the code on those Fremont cars.
Interesting. All three of the four earlier (up to ’64) Corvairs from the quartet a week or two that I was able to get to the tag have the Magic Mirror and I just came across a ’60 Corvair (KC plant) that has it as well. Obviously that doesn’t answer any question.
With the benefit of hindsight and my limited and skewed dataset it appears that the Magic Mirror paint is susceptible to fading but turning into Magical Patina 🙂
When I worked at Fremont in the early 1970s we built intermediates. Chevy Monte Carlo, Malibu, Buick Regal, Century, and the El Camino and GMC Sprint. My Dad and Uncles worked there from the mid 1960’s until the 1980s, I’d ask them, but they have all passed on since then.
Fremont opened for ’64, corresponding to the then-new BOF intermediates.
There it is in the background, like a Yeti sighting, photo bombed by the coveted early Eldorado disc brake. lol
During the 80’s I had a white ’65 just like this. 4 door, 300 v8 & 2 speed auto. I loved the full width taillights which looked great at night. It had rust in the trim around the rear window and in heavy rain the rear floor wells would fill up with water. I recall driving and coming to a stop light and the water would swell up around my feet and when I would take off it would disappear to the back. And when the hood was shut that all metal grille would ring. It ran great and was a dependable driver that served me well.
I remember these ~ one of my best buds in the Boston area’s dad was a die hard Buick man and had one of these, it was nice, quiet and we didn’t know abut AC yet so we didn’t miss it .
The tin worm got so may of these fine cars =8-( .
-Nate
Mom had a ’65 Buick Special convertible, which was (I’d guess) the 2-door version of this. Her paint was a slightly more blue version of this but that could also be the white balance in the pictures. The interior shots are what takes me back; I think a lot of the elements were very similar even though the trim level was different. We had it up until about 1979 or so when one side of the frame rusted out midship while she was driving home from the store and started dragging on the ground (thank you, Massachusetts salt). Dad sold it and they replaced it with a VW Type 2 bus.
Aaron, save those parts!
These were great cars as we discussed recently in JPC’s ’64 Cutlass post; GM really hit the bulls-eye on the A-body intermediates (well, not so much with the overly bland first 2 years of the Chevelle).
My mother should have bought one of these 4-doors in ’67 instead of going with her default choice of a 2-door Chevy Bel Air that barely fit in our 1935-era garage. It would have made it a lot easier for my aging grandparents, who lived with us, to get in and out of the car as well.
Those mid 60’s Skylarks were very good looking cars in the two door form. This car looks good here but the 2 extra doors are probably the reason it’s in the salvage yard. Pity.
A treasure trove of parts at the very least. Buick got their money’s worth from that instrument (all two of them) cluster. Change the panel and it’s good until the ’70s came out.
The inside door release handles and the armrest look extremely similar to those on a ‘63 Impala. The window handles are different, though.
I have long thought that a version of this taillight arraignment should be on current Buick’s. It was unique then. It would be now. The 1966 Thunderbird Landau next to this Buick is incorrectly marked as a 63.
I love the taillights on the ’65 Skylark (and the ’64-’66 T-Birds). Here’s a night shot of my Buicks in the garage.
In the ‘60’s friends of our family had a ‘65 Skylark coupe in a similar shade of blue. As a young boy, I thought it was a great looking car, and in middle age I still think the same. They owned a series of Skylarks, the last one an X-body, but I always loved the ‘65 and it’s up there with old cars I’d like to own. Though it’s sad to see this one in a wrecking yard, I can imagine that some of the parts will help keep another one of these great old Buicks on the road.
My grandparents had a 1965 Buick Skylark. 4 door sedan in light brown. First car with air conditioning. They kept it until 1981. Great car. Except for the water pump occasionally going out.
I’m surprised to see this in a junkyard in this condition. Collectors have been rounding these very popular cars for many years. In fact any 64-67 GM A body is seldom seen in yards any more. This one managed to slip past the enthusiasts.
I had a 64 Special convertible in Desert Beige with the little 300 and 2 speed automatic. It was a low trim level rubber mat special with about 60,000 miles but very very rusty unfortunately. The 300 managed to give decent performance around town and made for a fun top down cruiser. I didn’t keep it very long and sold it about 6 months later.
2 months after that I pulled a rough 65 Skylark convertible out of someones driveway for $150. It had the 4 barrel version of the 300. Unfortunately it was just beat to death so I parted it out. It did seem to be better built than the 64. That was almost 40 years ago and I am still find small pieces of it in my garage. I am now in the process of purging all the left over bits from long gone cars.
GM built many different models at Fremont. Almost every 65-67 Cutlass and 442 I owned was built there. I believe the Buick and Olds A body were in production there at the same time. I should know but can’t remember the other models built there but it varied quite a bit.
Fremont became the site of NUMMI motors, the Toyota-Chevy partnership. After that production ceased the place was almost demolished. I have to credit Elon Musk for setting up production there. I realize that he got tax breaks and other favors to entice him. I’m not a fan of the man and somewhat skeptical about the Tesla but it is good that there is still some industrial production going on there or anywhere in California for that matter.
Ironic the California has one of the most significant car cultures with a long history of influencing the rest of the world yet today only Tesla is built here. In fact Tesla is the only auto plant in the west. You have to go all the way to Kansas City, Kansas to find GMs Fairfax assembly plant. The entire western US is a giant void when you are talking about auto plants. Make whatever jokes you wish but please share them here.
San Antonio, TX produces Toyotas and Arlington, TX produces GM vehicles and are both west of Kansas City. And Tesla will be outside of Austin with their new plant.
They aren’t west of KC by very much though, I get your point.
My background is in printing, there’s lots of that going on in California still including right in San Francisco and the rest of the Bay Area as another large industry although the biggest players are mostly in the midwest nowadays.
The other auto plants went to non union states in the MId West and the South. We once had GM, Dodge, Ford, as well as Peterbuilt, Mack, Giilig, and Caterpiller in the Bay Area. So Cal had several plants down there. It was a good time to be a union blue collar worker
Gillig Bus is still in Hayward off the 92, aren’t they?
These pictures make me feel all warm and fuzzy – the Buick details are a little different, but anyone who grew up in these A body cars will feel the kinship.
The Buick engines have always been kind of mysterious to me – I still don’t understand how they virtually always had smaller displacement V8s than Olds or Pontiac (probably why they put the torque numbers on the air cleaners). They had the misfortune, I suppose, of being the owner of that original 215 V8 and were stuck with its small architecture to the end when the Buick 350 only got to that size by having a significantly longer stroke than the others.
I am still an Oldsmobile man in these cars, but will not argue with those who prefer the Buicks.
You’re exactly right about the 300/340/350’s being tied to the aluminum 215’s architecture. See the attached snip from strokerkits.com (I wonder what they do?), and you’ll see that the common engine with the smallest bore centers is the small-block Buick. There was no more room to open up the bore.
Discussions of bore centers make me want to beat my head against the wall. All you say is true. Then there was the Studebaker V8 with a bore center of 4.5 – midway between the 4.4 of the SBC and the 4.6ish of the Olds, Pontiac and Ford FE, yet the rest of the block was designed in such a way that 304.5 was the ragged outer edge of displacement. At least the Buick 215 was not hampered so.
To add to what you’re saying, even block castings on the same bore centers were sometimes different. I’ve never tried this myself, but everything I’ve read since I was a kid has said that you can’t bore a Ford 260 (3.8″ bore) out to 4″, which is the 289/302’s bore size. Apparently, the 260 was cast differently than the later engines. Old hot rodders, however, will routinely tell you that you could bore a Chevy 283 out to 4″, making it a “301.” That’s a .125 overbore.
even block castings on the same bore centers were sometimes different.
Absolutely, and almost invariably so. Yes, the 260 block is not the same as the 289, and the Chevy 283 block is not the same as the 327. Boring the 283 to 4″ was common, but not without a degree of risk. The SBC cores were pretty stable, and it usually worked ok.
But yes, with other engines in the same family, there were often core shifts and other casting differences that precluded safe overbores above a certain amount.
The Studebaker V8 blocks that were built by Granatelli to 304.5 cubic inches were especially selected for low core shifts.
Casting precision was constantly improving, allowing engine families to be cast in such a way so as to allow bigger bores safely.
The Buick 215 was clearly “undersized” from its displacement potential, to match the power output for the Special/Skylark. The 198 V6, which was of course the same basic architecture, already had a 3.63″ bore and a significantly longer stroke.
The Rover V8 was expanded in displacement over the decades, peaking at 5.0 L for the production version used in TVRs, and builders have taken it out all the way to 6.3 L.
By regrinding the journals, the Buick 300 V8 crank could be readily used in the aluminum 215, which yielded 260 cubic inches without increasing the bore. That was a popular upgrade in the 60s.
Long gone, those days are.
CC’s Yoda strikes again. Lovely car, gorgeous photography.
Not sure your 32” in-seam could handle that rear seat. I’ve seen kei cars with better legroom. “Never mind the length, feel the width” would have been Detroit’s answer. Still, it’s strange how cramped these were inside, compared to their external dimensions. Like a reverse Tardis effect.
Take a closer look. Those are not the original seats, as the fabric alone makes quite clear. The front seat has a split seat back; Buick did not use that style on the sedan. But more significantly, the seats are not mounted properly, if at all. The front and back seat lower cushions are both way too high in relation to the armrest from where it should be. They’re probably just sitting in there loosely. And it makes the rear leg room look much worse than it is. Junkyard cars often have loose seats and/or cushions.
Nobody could sell a sedan in the US with uncompetitive rear leg room.
Ah, makes sense… Thought there was something fishy about the angle of the rear seat cushion. Looks like a chaise longue without the longue!
Thank you, I think the first and especially the third picture are my favorites. Zero editing on any of them. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn sometimes…
Think Skylark was first used on the sport Buick convertibles of 1954 5 6. In the 1980s my landlady had a light blue one parked unloved in a garage at the apt. building she owned where my apt. was.