(first posted 12/26/2013) This car may not look it, but the 1962 Buick Special was a groundbreaking car for the entire modern automotive industry. It wasn’t the car’s compact size or the fact that it was a small car made by an upmarket brand. The 1962 Special was more special than that. Give up? Go past the break and learn why.
The Buick Special was an institution at Buick long before this car came out. The original Special was introduced as Buick’s entry-level car in 1936, and kept that place in Buick’s lineup through the 1958 models. 1959 marked a clean sweep through Flint, with a new tri-shield logo and three new models. The old Special, Century, Super and Roadmaster were gone, at least for the time being.
About this same time, planning was underway for a radical change in GM’s lineup – the compact car. Even more radical, a compact would not be limited to Chevy and Pontiac; compacts would be offered at Oldsmobile and Buick dealers as well. The Y-body platform would be of unit construction and was originally intended to be shared between Buick and Oldsmobile. But Pontiac lacked enthusiasm for the Corvair, and latched onto the Y- body as well for its 1961 Tempest.
We have previously covered the Oldsmobile F-85 (here) and the Pontiac Tempest (here), so today will be the Special’s day to be, well, special. The 112 inch wheelbase of the Y body made them a bit larger than a typical compact of the times. The wheelbase would grow to 114 inches in 1964 and be called an A-Body intermediate. This was a bit less than the original 1936 Special, which was on a 118 inch wheelbase.
With its 1961 model introduction, the Special would continue the Buick tradition of offering nothing but eight cylinder cars. But this newest V8 was a bold and fascinating affair, quite unlike anything else made at the time. It was a 215 cubic inch (3.5 L) unit whose block and heads were made of lightweight aluminum. The rated 155 horsepower (190 with optional four-barrel carb) might seem tame, but this was really fairly impressive from the engine’s small size and was well suited for the lightweight car (2666 lbs quoted shipping weight). This combination (likely with a manual transmission) won the Mobilgas Economy Run for 1961 with an average of 24.7075 mpg. So much for the old joke about how “my Buick can pass anything but a gas station.” A slightly revised version of the aluminum 215 with different cylinder heads would power the 1961-63 Olds F-85 and Cutlass as well.
In addition to the three speed manual, the Special was available with Dual Path Turbine Drive, a two speed automatic with a torque converter. The car’s low height was made possible by a special two-piece drive shaft with a constant velocity joint, much like the one employed by Cadillac. Low? Yes. Inexpensive to replace? Uhhhh, no. In fairness, most Buick customers of that era would not be expected to keep the car beyond five years anyhow, and the CV joint was certainly good for that long.
OK, you have been exceedingly patient during this long wind-up, so you shall now be rewarded with the reason that made the Special special: Its new engine for the 1962 model, the Fireball V6. Named after the old Fireball (straight) Eight of the 1930s and 40s, this would be the first Buick with six cylinder power since 1930. Even more significant, this would be the first American production car with a V6 engine.
Aaron Severson has a very comprehensive history of this car and its unique engines at AUWM (here). There, he explains that the V6 was more or less a quick-fix in an attempt to add sales by making the Special cheaper and more economical. Twenty years later, the quick and easy solution would have been to spray paint a bunch of Chevy 6s turquoise and call it done. But General Motors of the early 1960s did not work this way. A Chevy six in a Buick would have been the kiss of death in Buick showrooms in 1962, so the engineers in Flint found another way. They started with the 215 V8, and by removing two cylinders and by casting the block and heads in cast iron instead of aluminum, Buick came up with an economical six quickly and cheaply.
The initial displacement through 1963 was 198 cubic inches, and its horsepower rating was 135, only twenty ponies shy of the 215. The unfortunate side-effect of the engine’s baked-in compromises was that it would of course retain the 90 degree V of the V8. The result was an engine with an uneven firing order that was, shall we say, not very smooth. An unusually heavy flywheel and extra soft engine mounts would only partially mask the Harley-Davidson-like power plant shake. The Fireball was also heavier than the V8 from which it was derived. However, these compromises had the benefit of getting the V6 from the slide rule to the showroom in only a year.
The importance of this engine in American automotive history cannot be overstated. Today, the V6 engine is very much the modern analog to the overhead valve V8 that defined a modern engine a generation ago. And this little engine was the one that kept the V6 flame burning long enough for the configuration to come into style twenty years later, when its unique combination of good power and small external size would make the V6 a natural in the front drive era. Who would have imagined in 1962 that this odd, rough little power plant would have the effect on the industry that it did?
Not Buick, as it turned out, at least initially. Buick lost faith in its little diamond in the rough and, after the 1967 model run, sold the thing to Kaiser Jeep, which renamed it as the Dauntless. Later, Buick had seller’s remorse, and bought the tooling back from AMC, which by then had also given up on it in favor of the AMC straight six. It was Buick’s good fortune that the tooling mounts remained in place on the factory floor, and the production equipment was essentially bolted back down to its original mounts, providing almost instant V6 gratification for Buick. Slightly enlarged to 231 cubic inches, the former Fireball was back behind the tri-shield emblem for 1975, and the rest is history. If there is something with a V6 in your garage (OK, something other than an early 60s GMC truck), this car is its progenitor.
In all, the Special was only modestly successful. In its first year, the four door sedan sold at a rate of about half that of the corresponding LeSabre, and the addition of the V6 and the upscale Skylark model improved things for 1962, to about 150,000 units. The ’62 V6 model also earned Motor Trend’s Car of the Year award. However, 150,000 units was not really a seriously successful car in GM-land in those years.
Was the “senior compact” Special a good idea? Chrysler thought not, haughtily advertising that there would be no junior edition to devalue the Chrysler buyer’s investment. The Special certainly had the capability of being an upscale second car in an era when a second car for the Mrs. was almost never as large or luxurious as the “good car” that the Mr. would drive to the office or the station.
As it turns out, the Y body Special’s only real legacy to GM, America and the world would be its engines. The aluminum 215 would have its own odyssey to the U.K., where it would have a long and fruitful life powering a raft of cars including Rovers, MGs, Morgans, and Range Rovers. But its most significant contribution was from the V6, an afterthought of an engine that would eventually become the most influential engine design in the U.S. Special, indeed.
I’ll take a wagon please.
The 1975 re-introduction of the V6 was a result of the fuel crisis of the 1974 time frame. GM was in a panic mode since big V8s stuffed into most of their cars had single digit economy numbers. AMC originally proposed making and selling the engine to GM, but GM decided to buy back the tooling and put it into production. Since the Flint engine plant had the original machine tool footings still in place, it was the fastest and cheapest option for GM to pursue. However, stuffing one into a 5000 pound LeSabre still didn’t make a real economy car nor a performance one.
In researching this one, I read somewhere that Buick tried to get AMC to restart V6 production so that Buick could buy complete engines, but that AMC was not interested, preferring to re-sell the tooling back to GM.
“I read somewhere that Buick tried to get AMC to restart V6 production”
The variation I saw was that, first, Buick yanked an old Fireball from a junkyard, put it in a current model and found it worked quite well. Then they approched AMC about producing the engines, but AMC’s price was too high, so Buick bought the tooling.
The AMC honchos apparently had no affection for the V6 and, as soon as they bought Jeep, dropped the V6 like a bad habit in favor of their own line of inline 6s. The story goes that, to fit the inlines, the engine bay of the CJ had to be stretched 5 inches.
I wonder if AMC had seller’s remose when they brought out the Pacer. I’ve looked into the engine bay of a 6 cylinder Pacer, with seemingly half of the engine up under the cowl. Bet that V6 would have dropped in a lot easier.
That may have been true. In the early 1970s, I was working for the EPA auto emissions lab in Ann Arbor. I remember when AMC came in with a request to certify the 3.8V6 for use in the Buick. When we asked the AMC rep what that was about, he replied that GM wanted it and wanted AMC to build it. They withdrew the application about a month and a half later when GM decided to buy back the tooling. Maybe it was all part of a negotiating ploy on the part of AMC.
Very interesting. Another idea is that AMC figured out that it might not be wise to front the cost of certifications and ramping production back up (in Toledo, or moving the tooling to some other plant) only to be reliant on GM buying 100% of the engines. It would not be hard to imagine GM either losing interest if sales were bad (as they had been the first time) or designing a better engine and then cancelling orders to AMC. That would be a lot more risk vs. some money in the bank for just selling the thing.
This is what iron clad cancellation claims are for in an OEM-facing supply contract.
Also, American Motors had considered the V6 for the Pacer after GM scrapped the Wankel project. When asked by an auto magazine about why they decided to go with their long-stroke inline six for the Pacer rather than the V6 they sold back to GM, an AMC engineer responded that the V6 was “rough as a cob” that it would take GM to make it right.
I find that a little hard to believe. The fact is that GM was the leader in emissions control components through it’s Rochester Products division and AMC barely had the money to get their own stuff certified and purchased the components to do so from RP, Ford, Carter, Holley and Prestolite. I just can’t imagine GM going for purchasing an engine that was certified with products from competitors when they were the leader. If they were going to dictate the components used then they might as well do all the engineering in house. Of course that is what they did.
Now it might have been a case where AMC was doing a study of certifying the engine for their own vehicles to see if it was worth their while to restart production.
AMC was eagar to sell, for quick cash in pocket. Buick getting V6’s toned down their ‘gas hog’ image.
In the 70’s, new Centurys, Regals, and Skylarks sold well with 25-45 y/o adults of the time. They were not called the ‘old folks’ car as they got to be in 1990s-2000’s.
The 2010’s finally are the era of ‘entry lux’ for Buick. And China sales too, so no more ‘old fogies’.
Indeed this is the case. The problem is these buyers continued to buy Buick and a 45 year old Buick buyer in 1975 was 70 in 1990. Those buyers were never replaced by GM.
GM was dropping the Wankel project but had finalized designs of the ’75 H-special cars derived from the Vega (Monza, Starfire, Skyhawk) which were intended to offer that engine. When Buick management presented the idea of contracting with or buying back the V6 tooling from AMC, President Ed Cole (aka in the corporation as Chief Engineer De Eloc) jumped at the chance as he considered the old Buick V6 the “perfect engine” to meet the need for smaller cars with smaller engines and just the right motor to replace the Wankel. And the upcoming downsizings of the full-sized cars for ’77 and intermediates for ’78 loomed large for GM to scale down its engines from the average 400 cid size of the 1974-76 period. And the V6 was cheap to develop and build as it could share many components with Buick’s 350 V8.
A V6 BIG 76 LeSabre is probably the least seen V6 Buick, the V6 was a treat though for the X-body Skylark and the A-body Century, plus it became the exclusive engine for the H-Special Skyhawk too.
The 3.8 started making more sense as the base engine for the 1977 and up B-bodies, where it was the base motor in everything between the Pontiac and Buick base B-body cars.
I’d read where in this negotiating phase with AMC, GM engineers salvaged a 198 Buick V-6 from a local Flint junkyard, rebuilt it and installed it in a ’73 Buick Apollo to where two Buick execs, their chief engineer and if I remember correctly, Ed Cole himself drove to AMC’s Kenosha site to inspect and negotiate a buy for the tooling. Imagine for top GM guys shoehorned into an “X” body (Nova) driving all the way to Kenosha . . . . or so the story goes . . .
Lucky for GM, not only did Flint have the mounts still in place in the factory, but AMC had preserved and sealed up properly for storage all of the tooling . . .
“salvaged a 198 Buick V-6 from a local Flint junkyard, rebuilt it and installed it in a ’73 Buick Apollo”
Yup. Heard a variation of that story.
“Imagine for top GM guys shoehorned into an “X” body (Nova) driving all the way to Kenosha”
I might question the part about driving to Kenosha. As the V6 was used by Jeep in it’s Kaiser days, the tooling would probably have been left in the Jeep plant in Toledo. AMC Engineering was on Plymouth Rd in Detroit, and, in the 70s, AMC’s headquarters was in an office tower in Southfield, in the Detroit burbs.
Thanks for sharing this JP! I enjoyed learning a bit more detail on the ancestor of they engine type that’s powered both cars I’ve owned.
I really like the styling on the Buick Special. Designers made it work, emulating the look of the larger Buicks.
I own two old Buicks and live near Flint, MI, so I’ve been lucky enough to have seen some interesting Tri-Shields, including several of these. I was at the “Back to the Bricks” show probably 5 or 6 years ago, and a Buick Club member had a really nice one of these. I asked him how smooth the engine was, because I knew they were basically 75% of a Buick small block, and were an “odd-fire” engine. He told me, “I’ll show you.” He fired that thing up and it was rocking around in its mounts at idle like it was running on 4 cylinders (it was running on 6). From the stoic look on his face, I couldn’t figure out if he thought it was running smooth or rough, so I just said “Hmmm. Thanks for showing me,” and walked away. GM in the early 60s was an adventurous company, weren’t they?
A friend of my older brother had a ’62 Special sedan just like the featured one; probably a hand-me-down. It was hard for me to fathom how the great GM could make an engine that sounded and shook like that. Take a V8, and start yanking a few plug wires off….presto! The Fireball V6.
Around this same time as GM released this sawed-off V8, Ford in Europe was gearing up the 60 degree Cologne V6, which was more like the true father of the modern V6 engine. And Lancia had of course been building a 60 degree V6 in Italy for some time…
Fords Cologne and Essex V6 was a bit of a lemon in actual use it appeared in the MK4 Zephyr over here and quickly developed a rep for overheating mostly due to header tank design. If you opened the rad cap with the engine warm it woud spew out water and topping it up still left the system low on fluid and it would cook, this mainly affected the 2.5 engine and Ford responded by fitting 3L engines in all cars V4 Zephyrs never appeared here. The oilpump/distributor drive was also very weak and stranded many motorists in their new cars and consequently English large Fords became very hard to sell and Kiwis began buying Falcons from OZ instead.
The Cologne and Essex V6s were two totally different engines, quite different in almost every aspect except their 60 degree V angle. I doubt many German Cologne V6s ever made it to Australia or NZ.
Yep there were some German Ford Capris here a mate had one fast car but geared for autobahns you could barely use top gear on our highways he sold it before any problems appeared Nobody at the time realised they were different engines.
they eventually did in the guise of the 4.0 found in the 2nd gen Explorer. Those were exported to Australia and NZ
I am glad you brought it up first, Paul. The first time I experienced a Fireball V-6 I was shocked a company like GM could produce it. All my exposure to GM to that point and been straight sixes and V-8’s, famously smooth and quiet. But the Fireball, well, smooth and quiet it was not. The worst part of driving it (it was a Buick Apollo I believe) was at around 1500 RPM a low-frequency thrumming sound reverberated inside the cabin. It was also gutless.In typical GM style, it took a good 25 years to sort it out and only because they had to.
GM really started down a bad road with this; before, I really cannot think of a bad GM engine. After this, there were plenty.
You raise a couple of interesting thoughts. I too am amazed by this engine. First, why did Buick (of all divisions) feel the necessity for a 6? Buick had sold nothing but eights since 1931, so the slow sales of the Special must have really set off some alarm bells. It is almost as though Division general manager Ed Rollert pulled a page out of Studebaker’s playbook to build volume by going downscale with a cheaper, thriftier car. To me, this was a massive mistake for Buick Division. The Special should have remained V8-only, and sold only in the highest trim level.
Secondly, if you were going to put a six cylinder engine in a Buick for the first time since 1930, why oh why would it be this unpleasant lump? I am sort of awed by the resourcefulness of the Buick engineers in making an edible stew out of the leftovers at hand. The thing was no doubt more durable than the aluminum 215, but this was just not a proper engine for a Buick. Thinking it over, Buick’s huge bet on that 215 was pretty much a disaster. It was not great in its original configuration, and its legacy was a series of compromises that left Buick with a very unpleasant six and the smallest V8 in its class starting in 1964.
The slow actual sales of the ’61 Special couldn’t have anything to do with it, since it took at least a year to design and tool up for the V6.
I suspect that the aluminum V8 ended up a lot more expensive to build than was originally thought, and the profitability of the Special was probably in doubt from the beginning. The V6 was a quick and dirty way to get something under the hood for a lot less money (to Buick).
As far as low-end compacts being sold by Buick, was that so different than what they had been doing with their low-end Specials all during the fifties? For better or for worse, it was a rather logical extension of Buick’s quest for market share.
JP, I think had GM actually made the investment to use a staggered throw crankshaft right off the bat would have made the Fireball a smash hit, but I always had the feeling that GM wanted this package to fail. Like Paul said, the smaller cars must have had very tight margins and Buick was trying to compete on price with these cars. They were intentionally moving their brand down for sales, which indeed worked in the short term. Since the Fireball was soon sold to AMC, it’s pretty obvious that Buick only saw it as a stop-gap, loss-leader that hardly anybody would order except fleets.
When gasoline was $0.40 a gallon who could possibly care for the fuel savings of a rough V-6 over a smooth V-8 anyway? Probably not that many.
“Ford in Europe was gearing up the 60 degree Cologne V6,”
True, but I keep hearing persistant rumors that the “Essex” Ford V6, the Essex built in Canada, not the UK, that was used in the 80s Taurus, was actually a reverse engineered Buick V6. Proponents of this theory point to design features of the Essex, like the oil pump, which was of a design common on Buick engines, but not seen on any other Ford.
Two totally different Essex V6s we’re talking about. The first Essex V6 was strictly a Ford UK engine, and had a 60 degree V angle. The second Essex was strictly a NA engine, and had a 90 degree angle, and did seem to show some influence of the Buick V6, as well as the Ford Windsor V8s.
Thanks for this JP,another car I don’t think I’ve seen more than 3 or 4 times in the metal despite going to shows for many years.Don’t think I’ve seen one in a magazine either.I could happily drive off in a 62 Buick special,V6 or V8,nice looker and not to big for UK roads and parking spaces
“When better cars are built, Buick will build them”?
Not true with this little model.
This is a bastardized Buick and therefore a GM Deadly Sin!
I disagree. The V-6 in it’s odd-firing, 90 degree form may have been a little rough, but it was NOT a bad engine. A little unfair lumping it into the same category as a POS Vega engine, or the POS Cadillac 4.1 V-8. Power was good (at least in the ’61-’63 configuration – I know as I had a ’63 Special). Of course, Buick came out with the even-firing 231 for 1978 which I had in a ’78 Special. Great low end power; not meant to be a high-speed flat out vehicle. Very economical (averaged 23 mpg) and very, very durable.
My dad insisted we find Delta 88’s with the V-6 as he was convinced the were a lot cheaper to run. The fact is they weren’t cheaper at all, since to get any performance out of them you had to put the pedal to the rug half the time. This put a lot of strain on the motor mounts, which snapped all the time. The camshaft gears were fibre and used to slip. Slowly the engine would lose power until it was a (even more) gutless wonder. Nor did they use any less fuel than a 307.
The V-6, after 1978, wasn’t bad in the smaller stuff, like the A-body Century, since the cars were a lot lighter.
1+. And on top of that, my personal opinion is that the GM 3.8 didn’t become the bullet proof engine that we all know and love until later in it’s life (i.e. late 80’s fuel injected versions).
I have had plenty of the earlier carb’ed 3.8’s apart, and the mechanics that I worked with certainly didn’t think too fondly of them. Later, after those god-awful 80’s carbs were replaced with fuel injection, sure. And they actually started to develop a bit of power then also.
The odd fire V-6 was notoriously hard on timing gear and chain, even when Buick started building it again in 1975, so I’d argue a bit with the ‘very durable’ claim. The even-fire version came out in mid-1977, so you could have a late build Century/Cutlass/Special with it before the ’78 models arrived. We had a ’76 Regal with the odd one, and a ’77 Cutlass with the even one, in the family. That crank change made a difference!
The GM divisions seemed to have such a hard time in the early 1960s when it came to designing engines for their compact cars: Chevy Corvair with the air-cooled boxer six, Pontiac Tempest with the Indy 4, Buick & Olds with the aluminum V8 and cast-iron V6. None of these were particularly good engines. Ford and Chrysler seemed to have a much better time with their little in-line 6 cylinder engines. And the Ford 221 CID V8, introduced in 1962, which was half-way between the aluminum Buick V8 and the small-block Chevy V8 in terms of weight, quickly evolved into the hi-performance 289 just a year later. The stylish 1962 Buick Skylark coupe with a 221 or 260 Ford V8 and a 4-speed would make a fine combination.
We could wonder what if the V6 had arrived earlier? I spotted on Allpar, this article about a blue print plans of a V6 from 1951 http://www.allpar.com/mopar/V6/classic-v6.html
And GM tested the water with the 1955 LaSalle roadster and sedan show cars
http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/1303_gms_road_not_taken_la_salle_roadster/
http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z16012/GMC-LaSalle-II-Roadster-Concept.aspx
As for the 1962 Motor Trend COTY. If Buick hadn’t showed its V6, Ford could had won the award with its mid-size Fairlane or Chrysler could had won it if the 1962 Dodge and Plymouth was released the way they was originally planned instead of the “plucked chicken” we knew today.
Oldsmobile was playing with a V-6 (OHV) in the late ’40s while developing their Rocket V-8 . . . . Olds division was getting a lot of heat from Cadillac Division. I think the influence of Olds Manager Jack Wolfram and Charles Kettering himself won over the execs to let Olds R & D engineer their own OHV short stroke V-8.
I had never seen nor heard of the Chrysler V-6 and wow, is that interesting and very, very modern. Note the 60′ V angle and compact size. Really amazing but I would agree not a good idea to market against V-8’s at the time.
Even the f85 had the Buick engine. Take a look at my 1965 Oldsmobile f85 Deluxe with the Eco-o-way V-6 !
I love your car. I grew up in your car’s polar opposite, a 64 Cutlass hardtop with the 330 V8. I know that Olds used the V6 in 64 and 65, but I believe that they switched to the Chevy 6 in 66? Maybe someone can either confirm or correct me here. From personal experience, I can’t imagine that Buick and Oldsmobile sold many sixes. This engine seems to me one of the first real cracks in the old Alfred Sloan hierarchy of brands from the ’20s. There should have been no reason for a stripper six cylinder Olds, let alone a Buick.
Yes; it was only available on the F-85 in ’64 and ’65. As such, it makes for only the second time that an engine from another division was used without any changes, the first being the optional Buick 215 V8 in the 1961-1962 Tempest/Le Mans. Or did I forget something 🙂
Yes Oldsmobile switch to an inline 6 for 1966. ( from Chevrolet i am pretty sure). Production number for my car ( f85 4 door sedan Deluxe with V-6 ) is only 4989 units. Mine was buitl in Oshawa Ontario. Sadly, i don’t have the canadian production figures but they are accounted for in the 4989 units. Total V-6 production ( all models ) for 1965 is 20881.
Olds went to the Chevy 250 six for ’66 intermediates. I remember around 1974, my Dad brought home a very clean ’67 Cutlass Supreme four-door hardtop that had the gold-painted 250 straight six with a Jetway 2-speed behind it. He should’ve grabbed that car. Very luxurious and was like a junior Ninety-Eight . . er . . . six.
Here is the car.
Beautiful car! So glad you kept the Econ-o-way V6.
Nice wheels, Luc !! Ironically, my 1986 Cutlass Supreme Brougham LS was an Oshawa built car . . . . 307-V8 from Lansing.
Nice looking car. 1965 Oldsmobile. 🙂
Thanks for a nice write up on an interesting car. My parents bought my grandmother’s Special wagon and had it from ’67 – ’69. I’m pretty sure it was a ’62. White with a red vinyl interior.
You clarified something for me. My dad said the car had an aluminum engine and that guys didn’t like to wrench on it due to worry that they’d break something. I always thought the car was a V-6, but since the six had an iron block we must have had the eight. The block cracked in my grandparents driveway after a 2.5 hour drive to see them. That was its end in 1969 and my dad bought a ’68 Impala for us to drive home.
Who says a small car must be boring? There is a lot of style packed on these. My nit pick would have been to offer chrome cladding on the door window frames. Even the Falcon offered that.
I have shared before my early childhood experience of the 61 Olds F-85 wagon that my parents bought new. It also had the aluminum 215. Its constant and un-fixable overheating soured my mother on aluminum engines for the rest of her car-buying life. Many is the time I recall sitting on the side of the road with the hood up for a few minutes to let the thing cool down. And we lived in northern Indiana! Mom loved the car, and without the engine problems, it would have been one of her favorites.
My grandmother probably had better luck as she used it as a commuter in Des Moines and a grocery getter. It played second fiddle to my grandfather’s ’62 Le Sabre. My parent’s pressed it into service as a primary and only family car and it saw interstate use. That was its undoing.
It seems to me, the more I read here about the Buick/Olds/Rover 215 V8 here, it was the Olds version that really had cooling issues. And having totally different cylinder heads, it sure could have. I admit I have NO experience with the Olds version. I was brought home from the hospital in ’66 in a ’62 Special wagon, had it until the early ’80’s never a cooling issue, hell, still had original water pump on it. So I must ask: Which version did YOU have heating issues with? Start the comments rolling or should we start a separate thread Paul?
My understanding is that the most common problems stemmed from the blocks having porosity issues, as well as radiators clogging up due to the incompatible anti-freeze of the times. I had a friend who had a Cutlass, and that seemed to be the problem; it always tended to run hot just like a car with a plugged radiator. Which is what it was.
And that problem plagued both versions. But I’m sure there were exceptions.
Nice write-up JP. The 215 also had another life as the basis of the Repco V8 and won an F1 world championship with Jack Brabham. (They won the following year too but I dont think there was any 215 left in the engine by then)
Such a rough engine in a luxury car does seem a bit incongruous.
There are just some power plants that are noted for their efficiency and durability. These tend to be the ones that spit at me. My experience with the 231 includes watching one burn on virginia beach blvd and there are no particularly good experiences to ameliorate that nightmare. Never owned a buick but it’s corporate sibling-olds has managed to make life interesting every time I took the plunge.
The 231 turned me into an AMC fan while it remained.
Judging from your submissions to Curbside Classics, your appeal briefs must be of the highest order.
GM recycled the styling of this car down under those peaked front guards appeared on the unpopular 65 HD Holden the only Holden ever styled in the US it was a durability disaster the bodies were not vented properly and rusted US style ie rapidly not a good thing in a places where people kept cars longer and paid more for them. The Buick V6 took longer to get here 1988 it appeared in the VN Commodore and remained until the recent 3.1 & 3.6 V6 was released
Actually, the Special goes back a couple of years earlier to 1934 as simply the “Series 40” . . . .
I know some called this car a Deadly Sin, but if not for the Buick V6, the brand would have ended up with Pontiac/Olds in the history books.
I bought a relatively low mileage ’63 Special (V-6, Twin Path two-speed automatic) in 1986 – the center driveshaft piece was ‘noisy’ – however, I got this car cheap. Downside was that to replace this CV joint piece required some expensive (then) machining since the only piece I could find was a junked ’62 F-85 that had a V-8. The V-8 shafts (at least those from Olds since it used the Hydra-Matic 3 speed Roto unit) meant a machine shop had to cut the shaft down to size to fit the Buick. Brother in law had connections as he had a shop at the time, so I had the machining done for cost; I supplied the F-85 shaft and they cut it down to size.
Sold it to a buddy for $350.00 who drove it from Alameda to Seattle where, I understand, he drove it for years afterward.
Took a few decades, but they figured it out eventually.
Nice Buick, there is one of these in the Ennis, Montana area, but I always assumed it was a Skylark. Some of the locations for that grey primer seem a bid odd like around the creases on the side.
These days you cannot use Ice Blocks or Ice Tongs in advertising because no one would know what they are.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1961BuickSpecialAd02.jpg
So you realize that 114 wheelbase is exactly the same as a Panther platform Crown Victoria and Grand Marquis which were “Big American Boats” when a 114 in wheelbase Special is a “compact”.
Great write up JP. I actually like the Buick version of these compacts the best. It’s lines and simple and honest, yet stylish. I’d pass on a heavy shaky six in favor of the lightweight V8 though. 🙂
Having coped with PRV’s for many years, I’m no fan of 90 degree V-6s, but damn this little Buick is a looker! I can’t figure out why I don’t recall seeing one before–were they not sold in Canada?
There were a lot of these little Buicks out here on the West Coast. I Currently own two of them in Victoria BC
Drove a number of vehicles with the 231 V6 and its progeny. First my family owned a ’77 Olds Omega with a V6/three-speed auto (I think). Had enough power to get out of its own way and the a/c worked effectively and the knit upholstery was comfy. BUT the choke gave us enough trouble that we all became expert at holding the gimzo while somebody else cranked it up. The idle was always shaky and the transmission ca-chunk-chunk-chunked though the downshifts. Traded away in ’79 for a Monte Carlo with a V8 after the Olds ejected oil out the air filter snorkel (subsequently a recall issue). Then a few years later that engine turned up in all sorts of Olds 88s, Chevy Impalas and Olds Cutlasses. Seems like they tamed the shakies out of it but it had less oomph in those heavier cars. Then, the injected V6 in the 85 (?) Olds 98, sitting transversely and powering the front wheels instead. Last trip that I recall behind the that old V6 was a mid-2000’s Grand Prix. Who would have thought it possible that basic engine would have evolved and endured as it did?
I’ve always been a fan of the 1962 Buick Special and Skylark. The 1962 and 64 are my favourite years for Buick. I remember seeing a 62 Skylark coupe several years ago, when I lived in Bellevue, Washington. It was a beautiful red with a white roof. I would’ve bought the car myself, but I wasn’t in the market for a car at the time, much less a classic American car.
My first car was a ’62 Buick Special, bought in 1977 from my grandfather (who was retiring and had been using it as his back-and-forth to work car) for the $75 it cost me to put new brakes in it. It was a VERY basic model–it didn’t even have a radio–but I remember it as having a V8, not a V6. I was 16 at the time and so didn’t know the difference, so that’s what my dad and/or grandpa would have told me. Were they wrong / am I remembering incorrectly, or is it possible that it had a larger engine than I’ve ever been able to find record of? I know it was like driving an ice skate in the snow: lots of power, no weight.
Either way, I wish I still had the car. It basically rusted apart (as in holes in the floor so your feet got wet when it rained) but it never once failed to start even when it was well below zero.
Why didn’t Buick simply produce non-alloy 215-244 / 3.5-4-litre versions of the Buick V8 after selling the all-alloy 215 Buick V8 to Rover (via lower displacement versions of the Buick V6)? Especially since both the all-alloy Rover V8 and non-alloy Buick V8 even with the same displacement would have diverged overtime.
It would have also been interesting seeing Oldsmobile and Pontiac versions of the non-alloy 215-244 Buick V8, in the case of Pontiac a 1800-2000cc Slant-4 (potentially equipped with OHC) would have been a suitable alternative to the 195 / 3.2-litre Pontiac Slant-4 derived from the 389 Pontiac V8.
That’s pretty much exactly what they did. The 300 cubic inch iron V8 that replaced the aluminum 215 in 1964 are both from the same family of engines; same basic architecture, also shared with the V6. In fact, the ’64 300 used the 251’s aluminum cylinder heads, intake manifold and accessories. In ’65, they switched to iron heads.
Was referring to a cast iron Buick V8 with exactly the same displacement as the all-alloy 215 Buick V8, with scope for a reduced 180 cubic inch version of cast iron V8 with 180 cubic inches as was originally conceived with the all-alloy Buick V8 (prior to being enlarged to 215 cubic inches by Joe Turlay) along with a 244 cubic inch version.
I bought a Buick special new in on order picked paint color through the dealer. I had 3 uncles working at the plant here in kansas so I was able a few extras. I had very good luck with it . Replaced the u joint once speedometer cable.Won many drag races and had it over 120 miles an dozens of times on turnpike. Only problem with that was the engine was so light the front end started floating after 80 and made it hard to stear which was scary I AM NOW 82 YEARS OLD AND WISH I STILL HAD IT
I knew a girl in college who had a yellow/tan Special convertible with the V-8 and bucket seats. It was about 20 years old then and I thought it was a very nice little 1962 car. I was driving a ’73 Cougar XR-7 convertible at the time — they were about the same size, though the Cougar was, and felt like, a much more substantial car. But I’m sure the Special got much better mileage!
I remember seeing a lot of these when I was a kid in the 1960s. They seemed to be especially popular with older single women (such as school teachers and nurses). For years (from the ’60s to the 1980s) there was a metallic red ’62 Skylark hardtop with a white roof parked beside a neighborhood grocery store in my hometown.
Interesting to see differing experiences of the odd-fire V6. I’ve had both good and bad. Had a ’65 Special with the V6 and it was a smooth driving car, never even thought about the odd-fire setup. Conversely, I briefly (very briefly, long story) had a ’76 Skyhawk, and at idle that felt like one of those old motel beds with the Magic Fingers massage turned on. And it was clearly shaking every bolt and nut loose in the car.
Between the 1961 through 63 Buick Skylark and Special, my favourite years are 1962 and 63. Even though they share the same body styles, I find the 62 and 63 the best looking and the cars I’d buy if I could find a decent example. 🙂
I have a 62 Buick special, engine redone, tranny redone, carburetor new, body work 75% done. I’m interested in selling, I’ll accept an offer
My parents had a ’67 Skylark with the V6. Very nice car, not the smoothest of engines.
The first car I remember my Mom owning was a 1961 Buick Special! Bought as a “leftover” in September, 1961, when the ’62’s had just come out [I was three (3) years old], with the two-barrel version of the 215 V8 and the two-speed automatic transmission, Mom gave it away to a nephew by marriage in 1973, with 98k on the odometer and more rust holes in the body than an entire wheel of Swiss Cheese! In return for the free car, this nephew’s Dad installed all of the carpets in our new house for free (his profession was as a professional carpet installer)! We got the better end of that deal, as far as I was concerned! The replacement for that car was a dealer demonstrator 1972 Ford Maverick! Not an upgrade, IMHO!
P.S. The optional upgrade for the two-barrel 215 was the “high compression” version, fitted with a four-barrel carburetor.
P.P.S. This was the same car that started hitting on about six (6) of its eight (8) cylinders one day, and we fixed it by pouring a can of STP oil treatment into it! Cleared it right up and Mom drove if for another six months before she gave it away!
The only option on her car besides the automatic transmission was an AM radio that used vacuum tubes! Complete with CONELRAD Civil Defense triangles on the AM Band selector at 640 and 1240 kHz, CONELRAD was the ancestor of the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS), now the Emergency Alert System (EAS). Here’s a link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CONELRAD
Things we now take for granted as standard were optional on that car, such as backup lights, windshield washers and a RH sideview mirror, not to mention air conditioning and power accessories! In this bad boy, power steering was an option, and power windows, locks and mirrors were science fiction, LOL!
My ’97 Riviera sports the ultimate Buick V6 engine, the 3800 Series II supercharged mill.
It has plenty of power and reminds me a lot of my NorthStar Cadillac. On top of that, it looks very nice and tidy under the hood.
I briefly had a near mint ’61 Special sedan 215 V8 as a flipper/collector car in the late ’80s. My best friend’s dad bought a new ’63 V8 sedan with 3 Spd manual (trading in a ’59 SAAB 96!) and my grandmother bought a used ’63 V8 sedan in ’67. All 3 ran as smooth and quiet as Swiss watches and don’t recall any serious issues. The Olds version with add’l head bolts, different combustion chambers designed for the Turbo version was the better design and the one used for the Repco F1 V8.
I really like the station wagon .
I too had driven some rough and some smooth Buick V6’s .
-Nate
My first job out of college in late 1976 was as a salesman for the local Buick, Cadillac, GMC and Jeep dealer. One prospect I clearly remember was this blue collar kind of fellow who brought along his wife and two kids. He was excited and clearly proud to be a prospective buyer of a brand he quite obviously looked up to.
The LeSabres were found to be beyond his reach money-wise, so I steered him over to check out our Skylarks, descendants of the original ’61 Specials. He and his family checked it out and excitedly showed their approval for it. So, we all piled in and off we went on a test ride.
And that’s when the sale was lost. The smoothness he dreamed probably for his whole life that Buicks were all about evaporated thanks to the roughness of the Skylark’s V6 engine. We soon returned to the dealer and that was it. The disappointment he had was clear, and I realized there was going to be no way I could successfully get him past his disappointment for his dreams being crushed by that rough popcorn popper of a V6 engine.
When they let the engineers and the designers do what they did best, GM could and did build some amazing vehicles. But the executives and the accountants made some really bad decisions that led to some VERY subpar cars.
It’s interesting that they bothered to give the coupe and convertible different rear fenders and taillights from the sedan and wagon. The Olds wagon had unique fenders and lights, due to the width of the tailgate, but their coupes had the same as the sedans.
My grandfather was a Cadillac man for more than 60 years. In 1982 he thought it practical to purchase a second car to run local errands. He selected a Coupe DeVille equipped with a
4.1 L. V6 ! I did not know Cadillac offered a V6 option. Am I correct that this was a larger variation of the Buick V6 engine?
Yes it was.
It was only offered a couple of years in the early 80s. Since the 350 V8 diesel and HT4100 were both problematic, the Buick 4.1 was the best choice that year. It might have had a little more torque than the 4100 V8, but all three were slow.