(first posted 5/2/2018) The 1980s was a very dark period for design at General Motors. Building one virtually unchanged box after another, compact Chevrolets looked like full size Cadillacs and everything in between. The N-body Buick Skylark, despite some unique sheetmetal, shared its roofline and doors with its Pontiac and Oldsmobile siblings, and overall styling with other GM platforms such as the E-body and K-body. The 1986-1991 Skylark was boring and forgettable, which helped its sales given its primary elderly consumer base, yet hurt it in leaving little in the way of lasting impressions.
Pulling a complete 180, the 1992 redesign of the Buick Skylark was bold, daring, and distinctive, unlike any other Buick. And unlike its forgettable predecessor, it certainly did leave an impression.
1995 Skylark GS for sale on Craigslist
By “bold, daring, and distinctive”, I am of course dancing around the fact that the 1992-1998 Buick Skylark was undeniably ugly, and one of the ugliest designs to come out of Detroit in the 1990s — not that its siblings, the Pontiac Grand Am and Oldsmobile Achieva were all that handsome either.
Alas, mere homeliness is one thing. Absolute bizarreness, akin to one who has had far too many botched augmentative cosmetic surgery procedures, is another. The Skylark clearly fell into the latter category. What’s more, is that while looks are subjective, and indeed still a very important determinant of a car’s success, it’s what’s on the inside that counts. Unfortunately, from a more impartial standpoint, the Skylark’s objective qualities mostly came up short as well, making little in the way of advancement over its more stodgily-styled predecessor.
Despite all-new styling (by veteran GM stylist Wayne “Bustleback” Kady,) and sheetmetal, the Skylark was still based on the same N-body platform as its predecessor. In spite of its 9-inch increase in length, wheelbase was unchanged at 103.4 inches, making for a cabin and trunk that were no more spacious than the 1986-1991 version.
Powertrains, in the form of either the 2.3-liter Quad-4 or 3.3-liter V6, were also carryover, and most notably, the only available transmission was a 3-speed automatic, something rather antiquated next to the electronically-controlled 4-speeds in competitors. On the other hand, the Skylark GS gained standard electronic damper control, allowing the driver to adjust the suspension settings between “sport”, “auto”, or “soft” via the push of a button.
The Skylark’s one undisputed achieva-ment over its predecessor was its interior design and layout. Boasting a dramatic instrument panel design that was beautiful as well as highly functional, Skylark featured an elegant sweeping dash that blended into the door panels for the en-vogue “cockpit” look.
Analog gauges (full-instrumentation with GS models) were placed in the U-shaped cavity between the upper and lower dash, while radio and HVAC controls were placed high on a center stack angled towards the driver.
Depending on model, buyers were given the choice of either front buckets with an integrated floor console and sporty looking leather-wrapped gearshift, or a front “bench” seat with column shifter and a consolette in place of a front-center seat cushion. Unfortunately, in the name of safety and cost-cutting, the Skylark would lose its unique interior in 1996, when a plainer (and cheaper looking) dual-front airbag-equipped dashboard and door panels shared with the Oldsmobile Achieva came along.
Beyond that, changes were mostly limited over this final generation Skylark’s seven-year run. Engines were shuffled around a bit, though only the base four cylinder ever gained any power. A 4-speed automatic would be added in 1994 as standard equipment with the V6, and optional on the I4. 1996 would see stylists attempt to tone down the Skylark’s design with a softer front end, though it hardly looked any better.
The previous generation 1986-1991 Skylark, for all its boringness, anonymity, and laughable attempt at imitating the “Big Buick” look on a compact car, at least succeeded in its given mission in life as a conservative and affordable compact aimed at the extra mature, penny-pinching buyer still seeking understated Buick prestige.
The 1992-1998 Skylark, on the other hand, was a Pandora’s Box of confusion, lacking a clear mission in life. Was it trying to appeal to younger buyers? Probably. Was it also trying to retain its appeal to those old enough to remember the Roaring ’20s? Likely. Drawing attention and a new demographic of buyers typically requires something radical, and the 1992 Skylark was clearly that. Yet “radical” should not be something confused with “ugly”. While stylists had the right ideas, in execution, these ideas failed to integrate well into a design that successfully appealed to any demographic on a large scale.
1993 Skylark Custom photographed: August 2017 – Whitman, Massachusetts
Related Reading:
Great article. I certainly don’t want to offend anyone who owns one of these, but I always thought this was one of GM’s most outrageously unattractive designs – Aztec level of ugly.
This comment made me laugh but only because my Grandmother (who was a GM widow, milking her GM discount for all it was worth) followed her ownership of a pointed nose Skylark (V6 well equipped) with an end of production Aztec (the last car she would ever own.)
But let’s not forget that the Aztec had very high customer satisfaction ratings. I always figured that had something to do with owners being defensive about the car.
And let’s also not forget that Aztek prefigured the CUV craze of today. Way ahead of its time, really.
It’s tough to be as charitable as Lincolnman about this, but these got beat with the ugly stick. Yet in a sense, and it never occurred to me until now, they greatly channeled the ’68 Skylark. I’ve always thought the ’68 Skylark was painful to look at, although it did get much better by ’72.
It wasn’t as if all of Buick’s designers were missing the boat because the ’91 Park Avenue is a stunning car to this day.
That said, from my limited exposure these were durable and reliable little creatures.
I agree. I had friends with Achievas and Skylarks. They looked quite “radical” but the ones I remember were durable and well put together.
We used to see these traded in or at the car auctions with 200-300K miles with the 3300 V6 and 3 speed automatic and they were still running strong. You don’t get a more bulletproof drivetrain than that.
My buddy still drives a 1992 Century station wagon with the same 3300 and it’s closing in on 225K miles and still runs strong on the original engine
I saw a Cutlass Ciera with over 450K on a 3300…never even had the valve covers off. (It was a taxi…totaled when hit by, of all things, an Isuzu Amigo.)
As I recall, the 3.3 was a smaller-displacement version of the justly-legendary 3800 Buick, so running forever isn’t anything remarkable.
Totally agree on the ’68 Skylark and it is an interesting parallel to the ’92. While I get what the designers were trying to do, the reality did not match the sketches, and the cars just looked odd from too many angles.
Very true point regarding the Park Avenue. The 1991 might have very well been the most successful GM redesign, at least relating to cars, from the 1990s.
I never thought about the similarities with the ‘68’s. In some way the ‘68 was worse, because the equivalent Chevy, Olds, and Pontiac versions were so stunning and innovative (at least domestically, I know GM Europe had similar designs) in 1968. I had a colleague with a green ‘93 4 door … he did not seem like a car guy at all. But I got a 2door Quad4 Achieva as an insurance loaner for a week when our 5 speed ‘93 Corolla wagon was rear-ended by a Volvo 240, and I rather enjoyed it. Quite a contrast with the Corolla in many ways: power, visibility, weight of the doors … but not all bad. I don’t know if I would have accepted a Buick loaner.
’68 Skylarks are beautiful cars and are coveted classics.
Now its 25 years later and no one is looking for a 1990s Skylark.
I rented one in 1994 or 95 to drive across Texas; the transmission clunked and slipped the entire time and the whole car just creaked and groaned; pure FWD GM junk
I agree. I thought the ’68 Skylark was a cool looking car.
I always liked the look of these. There, I said it.
Was there a facelift a some point?
edit: yes – saw you mentioned that.
I liked them from the front. I thought the pointy beak was an interesting design. I’m certain it looked much better on paper than when they got it to production spec.
But the 5th picture down of the white one is a particularly good angle of it.
The back of the car always looked really strange. I have never liked faux-skirted rear fenders on any car. And the tail lights swept back too far for no reason.
I should point out that I would buy a 1995 Pontiac Grand Am GT coupe today if they were still being made or I could find a low mile one. So my opinion may be skewed.
A Bunky beak, half-hearted rear wheel spats, REALLY thick side mouldings from…..the place that makes them, apparently in great bulk. Whaddya gonna say?
It’s like a bunch of primary school kids had a day to give styling a go, and then somehow, some overly soft-hearted management who didn’t want to upset the parents signed off on it. Only an old loyalist with memory of what a Buick might once have been – just under Cadillac, don’t you know – could’ve bought this childish assemblage.
Nothing mysteriously Pandora-ish about this that I can see. More overt horror. Like an old player with one too many facelifts is just right, Brendan. (“Another facelift on this one, darling, and she’ll have a beard.” A line I do wish I was smart enough to have made up , but is actually per Patsy on AbFab. So likely written by Dawn French, but I digress).
I do hope this is now a rare find.
That is such an awesome show, no doubt in in part to writing larger than life characters. Patsy is my spirit animal.
Eddie: “You know what it’s like. You’ve given up drinking before.”
Patsy: “Worst eight hours of my life.
That facelift gag is even older than that, I remember hearing it in the early 80s long before ab-fab! Still funny though
No, it’s not new, but the unmatched dry delivery of AbFab made it rather stick in the memory.
There’s a version with the ancient much-facelifted Hollywood star, but male this time. Being interviewed, he’s asked in passing about the spot in the middle of his forehead.
“Oh, that?’ he says. “that’s my belly button.”
“Really?’
Yes, but that’s nothing. Let me show you my necktie…”
That’s an old one. i heard Phyllis Diller use that line in her standup routine back in the ’60s.
“Underacheiva.”
“Achieva!”
“God bless you.”
Sis’s 94 Olds Achieva got nicknamed the Sneeze shortly after she bought it brand new.
I had one of these for two weeks as a rental car on a trip to Dallas in 93 or 94. Brendan has described the car’s place in my mind perfectly. The exterior struck me right away as just French-level weird, but interior and driving experience were the plain old GM/K-Mart cheap and boring. I don’t remember that exotic dashboard at all. Perhaps the mouse fur gray color of the interior camouflaged its magnificence. In general, it seemed like a fine car for shuffling between Church and AA meetings and nothing that I would ever want to rent again let alone buy.
My personal car at the time was a 93 Acura Integra, which while not my favorite car, seemed at least a decade’s worth of engineering ahead of the Buick.
French-Level Weird. I think you nailed it! That said, I am probably one of the three people who kinda liked it. But then, I like the french cars. Vive la difference!
That bumper/grille treatment is awkward.
Primarily because it was exaggerated, like the stylist deliberately drew it that way counting on someone in management to tone it down to a reasonable level – only they didn’t. This kind of exaggerated style belonged to the sixties and seventies, but not the nineties.
Looking back at some of these GM designs of the 80”s is painful, no wonder they (eventually) went broke and are now, in their second life, just building monster trucks.
Wow such harshness on this poor Buick. i’m with Dingleydave, i like the looks of these cars. anything that strays from the mainstream, im game for. the 1st gen would have been more distinctive had GM not cookie cut it with the rest of the GM lineup(although i do like the Grand am) This Skylark looked good and different as Brendan said, the dash and interior were well done and very attractive. the styling set it apart. you’re right in the confusion about what was the target customer and honestly i don’t care about all that what i care about is how the car looks to me and if it stands out in a crowd. i don’t like to look like everyone else if the crowd goes left………..i’ll head right.
The only experience I recall with one of these was a miserable rental car in Mobile, AL. With a bench-like seat the female seatbelt side stuck well up and jammed into my hip and backside, very uncomfortable. If I were a wide load body type that would be more understandable, but at about 185 and 6-2 that wasn’t the case. Oh, and they’re ugly.
Another great piece, Brendan.
I was in high school when these came out. I remember a family conversation in the car about their styling. As I am prone to do, I was trying to defend some of its good qualifies, like its distinctiveness, but my older brother had a more succinct reaction: “That beak is hideous.”
This car is one of those designs that IMHO could have been pretty decent but the group that designed it apparently never looked at what some of the other folks in their group were doing.
That “beak” does look controversial but is made worse because the front of this car looks overly wide…especially compared to the rear.
Looking at the interior, for starters the steering wheel looks incredibly cheap, not that the super shiny red parts look all that classy. I wonder if Ford stylists used this interior as inspiration for the Focus, it sure looks similar.
I agree, it does seem to have drawn inspiration from the 68-69 Skylark. Why couldn’t they have used the 70-72 or even the Colonade models?
I must admit, I found this car’s exterior a “guilty pleasure”; had a strange attraction to it.
The dashboard and interior was quite pleasing to me.
Finally, I visited the local Buick dealership and drove one………”Dull and Flaccid” would be my most kind descriptive words for this car.
My paid for, ’87 Mercury Sable never looked or drove SO good to me, on the ride home from the Buick dealership.
This was one of GM’s epic fails on so many levels. The exterior and interior styling were “polarizing”–if you’re being polite. However there was no debating the dreadful quality of the interior plastics–even the first picture of the interior show the cheap, shiny, hard, low-grade plastics across the instrument panel. But the biggest “gotcha” in my mind is that each of the N-Body trio targeted the same buyers. Sure, the styling was different, but the platforms and engines were shared and the price points were similar. Each had a “sporty” variant and a “budget” variant. So what was the value and position of Buick? It certainly was no longer “Near Luxury”–it was just another cheap GM compact. And that was a huge miss given what was going on in the market for upscale compact cars–think of the Lexus ES300 for example, that was introduced in ’92 as well. Sure, it cost a lot more than the Buick, but isn’t that where Buick should have been competing? After all, Pontiac and Olds could cover other parts of the market…. But no, GM simply clumped them all together and competed with itself in a race to the bottom, while the higher margin market was effectively covered by rivals, especially the Japanese.
Heading into the early 70s that seemed to be the overiding philosophy at GM: give each division the same thing, a cheap and a premium version of every car. About the only time they deviated from that “formula” was when 1 or 2 divisions got a feature that wasn’t shared completely across the corporation….as in the Aeroback sedans at Buick and Oldsmobile. Or even earlier, the “vista cruiser” wagons that again, only Buick and Oldsmobile would get.
These always looked like designers took the most awkward parts of the Roadmaster for use on this car, only shrunken so as to screw up the scale. And where did they get the idea for that front end?
GM was clearly still in very much of a “we are all about style” mode. The problem was that 2 years later both Chrysler and Ford were out with genuinely modern cars in that segment that 1) looked better and 2) drove better. And even they were way behind the class-leading Japanese offerings.
These were like 1972 Plymouth Furys – not bad cars, but only purchased by someone who was hardwired to buy something built by Chrysler. GM had a bigger buyer base to cater to, but only for awhile.
Well at least they weren’t as ugly as the ’96 Taurus. There, that’s all I got.
Fishface? Agreed. I’d rather be seen in this. It’s like this is accidentally ugly here and there versus the Ford’s contrived-to-be-as-ugly-as-possible all over.
These were always cosmetically challenged, shall we say. The first thing I thought of when I saw this article was a friend of mine’s daughter got into, and went to, an Ivy League college about 10 years ago. She was convinced that her essay got her in. The topic? Her pointy-nose Skylark she had to drive all through high school to her great embarrassment, and how she rose above it and refused to let it define her.
Ouch! But that would’ve made an excellent essay.
At least tried to be different than other brands. But as some said, most only rented N bodies and were not impressed.
I rented a Skylark in ’96 and seats were too soft, no support, meant for elderly buyers of the time. Also was like a Cavalier, loud and buzzy, but had the Buick badge to sort of say ‘upscale’.
And with its rep as a “miserable rental car”, no where to go but off the market.
For whatever reason I kinda liked these best among the N-body cars. They always looked better as 4-doors and in darker colors like dark green and burgundy.
This was my father’s last car. He traded in a gen1 Taurus, the only car he ever bought on my advice. This was such a step down.
I drove it a few times, including on a several-day trip. Mediocre in every way.
By the time my parents stopped driving (my mother driving, my father navigating), it had a number of scars from their poor motor skills and spacial orientation. It looked even uglier.
I have to admit I actually thought these were kind of cool when they first came out, although that may have something to with the fact that I was around 12 years old at the time. I think GM was hoping this “quirky” design would make the same sort of splash Ford made with the Taurus a few years earlier, which itself was a pretty radical design for the time.
Does it count as the CC Effect if I saw this car’s cousin, an Olds Achieva on the road yesterday?
I loved the styling of these cars. It was such a nice change from seeing the same box shapes that thay replaced.
My friend had one in high school that was white on red, which we referred to as “the beak”. It was the slowest ugliest car imaginable for 16 year olds. Now I actually kind of like it.
I remember liking the Grand Am of this era much better. They even seemed to drive nicer and handle better too which wasn’t too surprising considering Pontiac’s sporty image of the time. The Buick would have been my last choice of the 3 N-body cars if I had to buy one.
My grandma had a 92 Skylark Custom in silver with grey interior. It was a good little car for her that she had until December of 2006. It only had 89k on it, literally going to the store during the week and church on Sundays. But it kept dying on her, and it wasn’t safe as she was 90 at the time. So I’m nostalgic when I see one, but I’m so glad she got rid of it before she died and I inherited her 2005 Impala instead. She wanted a car with a column shifter so that was one less change for her to get used to after the Skylark.
I am not a fan of Wayne Kady.
He tried.
I also kind of liked these at the time. Another breath of fresh air after a decade of dullness. I never drove or even rode in one though.
I liked a lot of GM’s designs in the early 90’s. Distinctive and interesting. Quality and refinement was atrocious though.
Am I the only one who thinks the dash has a strong resemblance to an early Ford Focus one? I guess somebody in Dearborn found something to like in this car.
I actually like the quirky exterior styling these 1994 Skylarks have even if the car is lacking in other areas. Course I cannot find any in Tualatin so I might have to go to Pick N’ Pull to find one and figure out if they really are ugly.
I always thought these Skylarks looked like a clay model prototype that was maybe 45 percent realized and mistakenly rolled into production only half baked. The nifty design of the cockpit is an incongruous counterpoint to the sad looking exterior!
That’s it. The overall shape is fine, it’s just that some of the details aren’t right.
Unlike some of GM’s earlier sedans with those bolt-upright rooflines and ultra-flat panels with ultra-square edges, these didn’t look bad. They would have passed unnoticed in just about any country, except for a few awkward details. Unfortunately, those were the details which defined this as a Buick. Tone down the beak and rethink the taillight wraparound, and this wouldn’t look bad.
Bob Lutz did say in a book that GM in the early ’00s was putting first drafts into production, I wonder how far back that started.
I LOVE the styling of these cars, inside and out, stem to stern. My ex-wife hated ’em as much as I loved ’em and I was always pointing them out back in the day. But even she had to admit that the Gran Sport looked pretty good.
When originally presented the explanation given for this car look was said to be the 1939 Buick Special. And if you look that up, you can see an attempt to do just that.
Problem was, chasing a styling theory can make you lose your goal of building an attractive car. That’s what happened here. Buick was too enamoured over the idea of a 39 Buick to reign in the stylists when it got ugly.
Then there was the years that Buick went overboard with the dropping side trim. Sorry, 1968 Skylarks aren’t attractive., they’re wierd.
1939 Buick
This was right about the time period I did a total switch from GM to Ford for personal transportation. The exception was the Suburbans and a Z71 pickup. Not hard to explain why.
These were a real hot mess if ever there was one. At their introduction my response was WTF , and it hasn’t changed over time.
Was the Buick Skylark beak inspiration for the Acura beak that would come out a decade later?
I see a lot more 1970s Pontiac Gran Am “Endura” beak in it than Acura. Acura’s mid-00 grilles looked more like guillotines than beaks.
These were the days when admitting you liked GM was akin to admitting you liked mullets, or that you never brushed your teeth, or…
When NBC celebrated their 75th Anniversary, the TV special also carried a hilarious “blooper reel” of embarrassing moments, such as “David Cassidy: Man Undercover” and the XFL.
If GM were to have a blooper reel, this Skylark would be on it.
Great write-up on a car that wasn’t too common when new.
GM was heavily criticized for rolling out bland, look-a-like cars in the 1980s. These Skylarks were a reaction to that criticism, but went too far the other way. The details made the car seem odd, not interesting, let alone attractive.
The slightly covered rear wheels on the coupe were especially jarring. Interestingly, a similar detail had been planned for the Oldsmobile Achieva coupe, but supposedly Oldsmobile delayed the coupe’s introduction in order to give it a more conventional rear-wheel opening. This last-minute change for the Achieva coupe was definitely a change for the better.
Good article, Brendan. Except for your comments on its looks.
I worked for Buick Customer Relations in the mid-90’s. We were given the opportunity to drive PEP cars for 3 days if we so desired. And hey, GM paid for the gas.
I was surprised when I drove a Skylark. I don’t remember what my transportation was at the time, but with V6 power and more interior room, I liked the car.
As far as the looks go, I thought they looked a lot better and more interesting than the Grand Am.
The ’86-91 Skylark was a very, very nice car and successfully imitated the styling and feel of the bigger C body Electra/Park Avenue. For people who wanted traditional Buick luxury in a smaller package or at a lower price, the Skylark was great. The styling was dignified and crisp and the formal roofline made the car roomy for its small size. It was reasonably priced too and went from under 10 grand as a base model (not too base for the day, though, as they almost all came with air, automatic, and a decent cassette radio) to about 13K fully loaded.
The ’92 was just awful in comparison. I think that although it was still called an N body, it was actually a Corsica underneath. Is there a single good line on this car? It has an angular beak, which could have made sense if the rest of the car had had angular styling, but it doesn’t. Why does the front wheel arch extend that far above the grey beltline and the rear wheel arch is below it? I also really hated the slight upsweep of the window line and the curve at the edge of the rear quarter window. It just sets my teeth on edge. The rear bumper juts out like a shelf. To add insult to injury, these cars were significantly more expensive than their predecessors, while still only offering three speed automatics, a noisy quad four, and an expensive 3300 v6, no airbags and iffy GM quality. The previous generation had been less expensive than the w body or competitive imports and had some advantages but this generation wasn’t competitive against even the hoary Tempo or Spirit/Acclaim.
The faux-skirted rear fenders are better looking on the ’92 than on the ’68 . The 2 doors and only the 2 doors , ’92 got almost a futuristic shape and it’s not so bad looking . In my eye, the design is purest than the one of the same era Gran-am with his all around plastic cladding .
I had a ’94 that I bought off the Buick dealers lot. I think it was a loaner car, it had 4,000 miles or so. It was a slate-blue color with gorgeous metallic flake, and a blue cloth interior and blue dash and carpet. The engine was the V6. It had the beak and the swoopy dash. The car was an excellent car. It drove well, was good on gas, and was quite quick. I needed a reliable car to commute with, and this was perfect. It flew under the radar with the cops, no one paid attention to it, likely assuming an old person was behind the wheel and not a guy in his 20’s. The car held up with no problems. I believe I had it for 150,000 miles or so and traded it for a Maxima. Fantastic car.
A styling nadir in a forest of styling nadirs for GM. I’m so glad you included the ridiculous artist ad picking up on the garish three-tone color option – why Wayne Kady and the Buick designers were channeling the ’56 Hudson is beyond me.
I was driving a four year-old Honda Civic when these came out, and it looked, felt, and drove 10 years ahead of these.
The Skylark’s styling was an unfortunate result of trying to bring to production the Buick Bolero concept from 1990. It almost never works when you have to adapt a wild and beautiful concept to the realities of a shared platform with fixed hard points.
I worked on this trio of N-body compacts during my early years as an engineer at GM. I remember our team being mildly enthused by the Grand Am, indifferent to the Achieva, and absolutely despising the Skylark.
I rather liked the outside at the time for being distinctive, but not the drooping dash. Few cars look good in white.
This Skylark reminds me of the old joke-A camel is a horse designed by a committee. Judging by its appearance the Buick stylists were trying to create a vehicle that would appeal to younger buyers and at the same time not antagonize the blue hairs. In my opinion they failed. Back about 1993 or so I was vacationing and requested a rental car. A white four door Skylark was what I got. I hated the dash board and the instrument panel. this car was not attractive, it was wierd.
Saw the pic and read the headline. Knew immediately that the article wouldn’t be kind at all to the Skylark. Complain because the 86 to 91 was bland and too boring. Complain because the 92-98 looked too goofy and odd. I bet if it had a Toyota or Honda badge, the story would have been quite different.
But allow me to share real life experiences here. I started at a Buick, Cadillac, GMC and Honda store in 1988. I sold many of the 88-91 models and they were a bit bland but good cars. I probably sold more of the 1992 to 1995’s (year I left for a career change) than any other sales people at that store. My wife and I at the time went to buy our first brand new car as a couple and we looked at the Accords (mainly her) and to be fair, I showed her the Skylark. After driving them, she ordered a white 1994 Skylark. That was an outstanding car with great comfort and was quiet and efficient. Way more quiet and slightly better MPG than the comparable Honda. Better warranty. Lower cost of ownership/upkeep. At that time, you still had to perform a manual valve adjustment and complete tune up every 15,000 miles on the Honda’s. A few years later we got a refreshed 1996 Skylark and again was a fantastic car. If you went with the GS version with the standard adjustable shocks, it was a great handling car. In 1992, a buddy of mine who had purchased a 1991 Buick Regal GS called me with a lead. He was working at a country club in near Chicago and one of the golf pros was driving a 1988 BMW 3 series. He saw my buddy’s car and asked him about it and that’s how I ended up working with him even though I was nearly 2 1/2 hours away.
After months of working with him, we got a brand new 1992 Skylark GS 2 door in the red like his BMW, so I called him. He drove out and I took the car to show him. After driving it, he was sold and purchased the car trading in his BMW. Although he liked his BMW, he was tired of the costs and such. Anyhow, as was my policy, I followed up several times in the first year and then once every year after. In 1995 when I left, he was still driving that car and loved it. They were better cars than what most give credit for and certainly deserve better than an article like this one.
I always thought these were good cars, and I appreciated the quirky styling, but I qualify as an outlier. The problem was, I think, after all the badness/blandness of the “Irv” years, what Buick needed badly was something classy, which these were not because, frankly, they were trying too hard. They got that a bit later with the Regal, Park Avenue, and LeSabre,but these were just a little too weird for a Buick, even though they weren’t bad cars.
Again, it seemed like nothing from GM’s styling studio ever got sent back with the memo “Try Harder” in these years. Buick finally got right a little bit later, as in a sense also did Oldsmobile (but never Pontiac), but it was too late for the latter two brands.
Great article. These seemed to be of the love it or hate it design.
We bought my son a used 1995 GS red over black leather with all the options.
It was a nice driving car, good on fuel and ride well.
And until an electrical gremlin appeared, he really liked that car . Sadly, whatever was wrong caused the car to just shut down and not restart. He was 17 and my wife was with him when it failed. That was it-she wanted him in something safer. So we traded it on a brand new 2005 Sierra work truck with a five speed and V6.
He didn’t like that truck bc of no a/c! And the dealer called to make sure we were happy. I asked if they had sold the Skylark and he told me they wholesaled it! He said it was on a test drive and just died!!
Undiscussed here is that this another car that the Methuselah A-Body Century probably killed. Yes it was entering its 2nd decade and looked old school but it also looked good in a classic way. They were the same length but you got more cargo and passenger room in a Century. Now I am not pretending anyone cross shopped a Century with a ’92 Camry but I am not sure anyone did with a Skylark either. But the large reservoir of Greatest/Silents who bought these probably preferred the Century. It looks like the Century outsold the Skylark 2-1 and amazingly the Century was still selling 100k through 1995. Even if some was fleet that is still impressive.
It is amazing in retrospect how much of a mess GM was in this time period. They lost almost 5 billion in 1991 as they had Saturn, Geo and multiple unprofitable smaller cars in their main divisions. They were profitable again by the mid 90s (I assume because of SUVs and larger cars). But they never came up with a smaller or midsize car that was a class leader and worse mailed it in with the Aztek a few years later in the emerging crossover class.
My father-in-law bought one of these that had been a former rental car. It was a 4 door in the bright green featured in some of the advertisements. Not too long afterwards, he failed his driver license renewal vision test.
I’m convinced the subsequent need for much stronger glasses went a long way towards explaining the initial purchase decision.
I actually liked the odd looks of these. They were, Afterall, the queens of the AVIS “mid size” fleet. One of my mom’s neighbors in her senior housing complex, actually has a 98 version with it’s clipped nose. She came here from Florida, so of course, it has the mandatory dealer installed fake convertible roof and a luggage rack on the trunk. In an oh so 90’s teal with a tan top, of course! I do love the interior on it. I take her grocery shopping about every 6 weeks. Got to say, that little v6 loves me blowing the cobs out! BTW, she’s leaving it to me in her will. That is a blessing, right? Right????