(first posted 4/20/2015) The Vista Cruiser had “GM” written all over it. Nobody but General Motors had the kinds of huge engineering and development budgets that spawned cars like the Corvair, the Aluminum V8 Buick Special, the flex-drive-swing-axle slant-four Tempest, the FWD Toronado, the Vista Cruiser, and so many others. Before emission controls and fuel economy requirements put the hands of the GM engineers to the fire, they had the luxury to play. And play they did; if you were a kid hired by GM to develop a new station wagon concept, wouldn’t you have come up with the Vista Cruiser?
Yes, the glassy roof is what the Vista Cruiser (and the analog Buick Sportwagon) is known for, and that alone is a playful touch that nobody else tried on a wagon. But it’s much more than that which makes the VC so unusual, in the annals of American wagons and the traditional definitions of the station wagon market segments.
These wagons appeared in 1964, along with the rest of the new A-Body GM mid-size cars, which rode on a 115″ wheelbase. And Olds already had a full-sized wagon, the 123″ wb Dynamic 88, as did the other divisions, except for Cadillac. But for some inexplicable reason, Olds and Buick decided that they would stretch the F-85 wagon by adding 5″ to the wheelbase, all of it right behind the second seat, thus creating room for a third forward-facing seat row.
But it wasn’t all that simple; the stretch also meant new, longer rear doors, to make access to that third seat a wee bit less difficult, as well as raising the roof height, since that third seat was now directly over the rear axle differential. That raised glass roof was not just for fun after all.
Were these super-mid-sized wagons designed to fill the gap between the two-seat only F-85 wagon and the two or three seat Dynamic 88 wagon? It would seem so, except that Olds and Buick killed their full-sized wagons for 1965. Why would they do that?
Well, one could argue that the Vista Cruiser was a legitimate alternative to the full size wagon, and perhaps a somewhat more sane alternative at that, given that it was more compact in every way that counted positively, and had better space utilization than the full sizers. But still; it’s a bit odd, with Chevy and Pontiac selling full size wagons, and Buick and Olds selling these smaller ones, all the way through 1970 (Buick did bring their full size wagon back for 1970). The A-Body was a bit narrower, and three across seating was never going to be quite as comfortable as in the B-Body.
Yes, ‘Vista-Dome’ railroad cars had been around for some time already, as had the Greyhound Scenicruiser, so one can’t really make the argument that GM went this route specifically to cash in on the magic of glassy roof panels. That is, unless GM really was employing kids. I would have died to be able to ride in one of these on the way back on our annual vacation to Colorado instead of our cramped ’62 Fairlane sedan.
Our our famous torture/vacation drive to NYC in 1964. Look; I’m still in the exact same position back there, staring up into the sky, even though ‘Mom’ has moved a bit. Was it some new neurological drug to temporarily paralyze me that my father was trying out on me, or is it the magic of pre-digital Photoshop? Naw; the view out those Vista windows was just too compelling.
For you hard-core students of station wagon history, I should point out that forward-facing rear seats had pretty much died out some years earlier, with one notable exception.
At one time, that’s all there was; station wagons were extra tall, and the third seat was just bolted to the rear cargo area. Ford kept the forward-facing third seat going the longest, right through 1964. If these folded completely flat to the load area, I’m not sure, and it’s hard to find images of them. In 1965, Ford switched to the unique twin facing jump seats. Chrysler and GM had switched to rear facing third seats in about 1957-1958. This issue was one of those endless conundrums: which approach was better?
Clearly, they all had their pros and cons, but rear-facing third seats had two big disadvantages: they were anti-social (a benefit with some kids), and they left no interior luggage space whatsoever. There was still a modest but useable cargo area behind the forward-facing third seat.
Given that GM replaced the exceptional Vista Cruiser wagons with the ultimate wagons ever, the “clamshell” 1971-1976 mega-wagons (we’ll get to them later this week) with their forward facing third row seat and extended wheelbase, it would seem that GM really did think this was the right way to build the ultimate station wagon.
Of course, it’s not like they invented that concept; that’s the exact same formula Peugeot laid down in 1950 with its 203 wagon, and used for decades: a lengthened wheelbase with a specialized rear suspension, a raised roof, and a forward facing third seat. Just no vista windows, sadly.
So there’s the background; you can make up your own mind as to what prompted GM to build this unique wagon. The result was a compelling package, as it was more ‘right-sized’ than the ever-larger full sized wagons, and predicted the size of the down-sized wagons that GM unveiled in 1977, but with rear-facing seats again. By this time, GM’s ‘play’ budgets were eaten up by more serious concerns, although a stretched 120″ wb B-Body with forward facing third seats would have been a highly compelling package; once again. Anybody care to photoshop a 1977-up Vista Cruiser? It is Wagon Week.
So yes, the VC wasn’t quite as wide a Dynamic 88, but the reality was this: everybody hated to sit three across; then and now. Which was the whole point of this wagon anyway: let Mom and Pop sit in front; grandparents in the second row, and Sissy and Junior in the way back.
If there was a number three, it could sit in the middle, somewhere. And when the grandfolks weren’t visiting; there was plenty of room to spread out, like in a split-level ranch house. Or a minivan or CUV today.
Sadly, this is a six passenger VC, which seems a bit odd. Why bother, when the F-85 wagon was cheaper, and had the same amount of rear load space? The only advantage was the extra leg room in the second row.
Well, the wonderful vista windows, of course! Let’s just hope Pops also sprung for the air conditioning, as those tinted windows still let in a lot of sunlight.
Under the hood thrummed a 330 CID version of Oldsmobile’s new Generation2 V8, rated at 250 hp. An optional four-barrel, high-compression version had a pretty heady 315 hp for only 330 cubic inches. Sadly, the 4-4-2 package was not available; that would have created a legend. Transmission choices included the usual three-on-the-tree, the two-speed Jetaway automatic, and a floor-shifted four-speed manual. Probably not too many left the lines with one of those four speeds, but that would have been my pick if I was buying the new Niedermeyer-mobile in 1964 or 1965.
Or maybe GM cribbed the Vista Cruiser roof from Rover, which had been using a raised roof with viewing windows on its Land Rover (and this Discovery) since almost forever. There’s nothing new under the sun, even if GM endlessly wanted us to think otherwise. But they had the money to play, and so they did. Why not; make hay while the sun shines.
Was it anybody else’s experience that the second generation Vista Cruiser was overwhelmingly more present on the streets than the first generation? I came along in ’67; my memory switched on in about ’71-72. And I can hardly remember seeing any of the first generation VC.
I think it might be that Oldsmobile and the Cutlass were more popular in general after 1968-70 than they were before. I saw a steady growth of these through the second half of the 60s, but they really started their ubiquity with the 69-70 models.
I agree with jpcavanaugh; the Vista Cruiser rode to greater heights of popularity along with rest of the Cutlass line.
The 1964-65 models stick in my mind because my parents looked at a used 1965 model around 1968, but decided to pass on it. Otherwise, I don’t remember seeing all that many of them.
I don’t remember many of the 1966-67 generation, but the 1968 and later models were fairly popular.
In my part of the world, remember seeing more of the “sister car”.((the Buick wagon))
Fair lot a “early 70’s”, VC’s though.
Whole lot a “mid 70’s”, models though.
I’m the same age as you, Jim. The second generation ones were definitely more common where I grew up.
What are those guys doing with the poles in that Country Squire pic?
I’m more concerned about how unrealistic that woman’s waist looks. She must have had her lower ribs removed. Even her facial expression displays pain.
Makes me think of Vera-Ellen.
I think those are supposed to be teen girls. Those walking shorts the girls are wearing seem youthful for 58, I am also stumped about the boys with the polls. Happy pole vaulters?
“Buy a new Ford for ’58 and your waist too will magically shrink!” Not.
I’m old enough to remember young women with 22 inch waists (!) This was before Big Mac’s of course.
The image is cropped. They are oars for a boat. Looks like someone is going rowing.
http://www.retroadvertisements.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/58-ford-redSWv.jpg
They’re not Poles, they’re Czechs… 😉
Turns out the poles are boat oars.
That first picture is an awesome shot! I can’t actually recall ever seeing an interior pic of the Vista Cruiser from that view before.
+1
We didn’t have a Vista Cruiser, but my Dad did buy a ’65 F85 wagon, in that same green color. The dash was different in the F85, had the ribbon spedometer rather than round gages (less sporty model)? It also had the 330 V8, he bought it at Val Preda Olds in South Burlington…after our ’63 Rambler wagon was totaled in an accident outside of Catonsville MD. It had a neat “disappearing” ashtray that rotated into the dash (we used to play with it endlessly). The kid next door scribbled with permanant magic marker on the inside of the tailgate, and the headliner got ripped when my father bought us bicycles at Sears on route 7 (to this day, my Father thinks that Sears should have covered the claim themselves rather than report it to his insurance company..which is one reason he’s avoided Allstate insurance for 50 years now).
I wonder what the price difference was between the F85 and the Vista cruiser? Anyhow he kept the Olds until 1969, when he bought a Ford Country Squire…he was to stay away from GM after that until he bought the ’78 Caprice Classic wagon (he really didn’t like the clamshell liftgates that full sized GM wagons had in the early 70’s, but returned when they eliminated that attribute. The Caprice was his last wagon.
The price difference between a basic (not Deluxe) F-85 wagon with V-8 and Vista Cruiser was in the neighborhood of $150–$200 at this point.
All 64-65 Olds intermediates including the Vista-Cruiser, had the horizontal sweep speedometer. The round speedometer and other instruments went on all the 1966-67 models.
Sears used to own Allstate, so you were busted regardless.
I don’t recall seeing many 64s (and I would have noticed because we were a 64 Cutlass family), but from 65 on, these got popular. The Graneys down the street had a silver-blue 65 and the Packers a street over had a rust colored 66.
My Aunt Peg and Uncle Pierce had a burgundy 67. It had the “childproof” locks on the back doors which (in theory) required the driver to unlock with a key. Aunt Peg just kept a table knife in the back seat so the kids could let themselves out. So much for child safety.
I guess I always thought the reason that Oldsmobile and Buick went for the stretched A-body wagon was that they figured applying the glass roof treatment to a B-body wagon would have cost too much for a lot of buyers. The early Vista Cruisers were actually a couple hundred dollars cheaper than the last 88 wagons and had more showroom appeal. Buyers who were looking for maximum space for the wagon dollar probably weren’t going to be looking to Buick and Oldsmobile showrooms anyway.
Maybe GM figured that people who wanted wagons to actually carry things would buy a Chevrolet or Pontiac wagon, while Oldsmobile and Buick buyers would be more interested in style and having “the latest and greatest” in features.
Without having any figures in front of me, I suspect that sales of fullsize Oldsmobile and Buick wagons weren’t all that high in the late ’50s and early ’60s. This may have encouraged GM to try a different approach for those brands, and it probably wasn’t that much more expensive to build stretched A-body wagons on a 121″ wheelbase specifically for Olds and Buick than it was to build a variation of the B-body wagon on the 123″ wheelbase specifically for Olds and Buick.
I have a new theory:
I had thought for many years that the Vista Cruiser was built out of house by Ionia Manufacturing, a subsidiary of Mitchell-Bentley. I just discovered that was incorrect; in fact Ionia Mfg. had actually built the big Oldsmobile and Buick B-body wagons since the late ’50s. The last Ionia-built wagons were built in 1964, when the parent company sold the Ionia plant to A.O. Smith.
So, my theory is that Oldsmobile and Buick had already decided that the sales of a full-size wagon weren’t worth the cost of setting up a new production line in house, but when they lost their outside body supplier, someone suggested creating a bigger wagon that could share the existing A-body wagon assembly facilities.
I don’t know if that was the case, but it would make sense.
According to the CA article, the Vista came out of an advanced studio. After that, it was presented to the divisions and Olds and Buick took it up. Maybe they were looking for something like this, but neither conceived it.
That’s certainly possible — I was just talking about why they put the glass-roof treatment on a stretched A-platform rather than applying it to a bigger B-body wagon.
I’m not near the article, but I’ll have a look and get back here. A Vista roof on a B-body… sugar rush.
According to the article, the idea went to the Development Studio where interchangeable sheet metal was prepared, then Buick and Olds bought in. Doesn’t say why they wanted to replace the B-body wagon, but the way the article reads is that it was always envisioned on the A-body. (Feb 2005)
That is the kind of information that really helps, and makes lots of sense. The Olds and Buick big wagons were not big sellers, for one reason or another. I suspect that most wagon buyers were more focused on practicality, and couldn’t justify the added expense, given that wagons were more expensive anyway, and these ’61-’64 B-Body wagons were decidedly not very stylish with their very boxy design.
Which also makes the decision to do something a bit out of the ordinary more justifiable.
(This came, by the way, from reading the Mitchell-Bentley history on Coachbuilt.com, which only mentions the wagons in passing, but is nonetheless interesting reading.)
Always wondered about that last row of rear facing seats in the wagons.
How many folks died or were seriously injured from rear end accidents.
If you were belted in, one would think that the chance of leg injuries was higher but the chance of being seriously injured or killed might actually be a wash. The seatback wasn’t there to protect you, but your trunk/head were actually farther from the back of the car.
Exactly. And until very recently medical science was a lot better at fixing legs than brains.
At this point, did wagon third seats have seat belts, even as options?
My aunt was in the Canadian Air Force and she told me that all their passenger planes had rear facing seats. Of course an airplane is most likely to crash or run into mountain, rather than getting run into. My aunt, who was in the medical corp, said that it was well established that rear facing seats were safer in airplanes, but commercial airlines did not want to force their customers to sit “backwards”.
Rear facing third seats were very important, for empowering baby-boomer kids to make rude gestures and funny faces to the adults traveling behind them. We have the Internet for that now :^)
Nice article. The car pictured is a ’66. My parent’s first new car was a ’66 F-85 Deluxe (not a Vista Cruiser). Wished We would have kept it. Apparently non VC Olds wagaons from that era are pretty rare. Their 2nd new car was a 1973 Cutom Cruiser wagon.
Bob
Ooops; I got way to focused on everything but the front end of that car. 🙂
No biggie. Boy this brings back memories. Mom, Dad and 4 of us kids. My parents bought a cushioned mat for the back. We would fold down the 2nd seat, toss the mat in there and had a rolling “play pen” or sleeping area on trips.
Our car was dark green w/ a black interior. Ours was ordered with the 250 hp V8, 2 speed Jetaway, whitewalls, delux wheelcovers and an AM radio. That’s it, no power steering or power brakes. Didn’t even have the power rear window. Had to get out and crank it up and down. And I remember that funky top hinged glovebox.
I noticed the VC in the pictures has rear storage instead of a 3rd seat. Our F85 Deluxe wagon did not have that. I also seem to recall seeing more VC’s than regular Olds wagons from that time. Given the survival rate of wagons in general these would be really rare now.
Bob
The copy says that the reason the roof was raised was because the THIRD row seats were over the differential…don’t you mean the SECOND row?
I really like these wagons, and yet another body style Buick and Olds had that Pontiac didn’t get. I can understand Chevy not getting these, but not Pontiac.
BTW, my family and 2 or 3 uncles had full-sized 64 Ford wagons. If you removed the seat padding (back and seat bottom) from the 3rd seat’s “well” it did indeed result in a flat floor indistinguishable from the 6 passenger wagon.
I don’t see how the second seat (middle row) would be over the differential, as it is well ahead of the axle line.
As for the model lineups, Pontiac kept a big B body wagon in 1965 that it shared with Chevy. Maybe the plan was that Chevy and Pontiac would get the big utilitarian wagons, while Olds and Buick would get the more luxurious mid-sizers. I have no doubt that the Vista Cruiser was planned knowing that the big B body wagon was on the way out at Olds and Buick. The real GM wagon mystery is why Buick came out with its one-year-only LeSabre wagon in 1970, shared with nobody and on the last year of that body’s six year life.
“The real GM wagon mystery is why Buick came out with its one-year-only LeSabre wagon in 1970, shared with nobody and on the last year of that body’s six year life.”
It is odd that they did that, but after Olds and Buick dropped their A-body wagons, they left Chrysler all to itself in the “true full-size near-luxury wagon” segment with the Town & Country. Without having any figures in front of me, I’m guessing that T&C sales were up through the mid/late ’60s, and this probably played some role in GM deciding to abandon the stretched Olds and Buick A-body wagons and go back to true B-body wagons for those brands. GM must have been sufficiently concerned that they felt they couldn’t wait until the new body arrived for ’71 to put a T&C-fighter on the market, but needed to roll one out for ’70.
Although the ’70 Buick fullsize wagon may have been based on the LeSabre, it was just called the “Estate Wagon” (no “LeSabre” in its name), a practice which continued through the end of the ’70s. For most of the ’80s there were separate LeSabre and Electra versions of the Estate Wagon (though both were built off of the LeSabre’s B-body), then Buick went back to a single “Estate Wagon” again in the late ’80s.
That wasn’t the only one-year-only GM offering for 1970 — the E-body Riviera and Toronado were also heavily altered for that year even though their replacements were already in the hopper. I’m still not sure what the deal was with that either.
In my earlier post, the phrase “…after Olds and Buick dropped their A-body wagons, they left Chrysler all to itself” should say “…after Olds and Buick dropped their B-body wagons, they left Chrysler all to itself”.
Eyeballing T&C production numbers in the Standard Catalog, Chrysler was below 10K a year during 1960-63, just about at 10K in 1964-65, about 17K in ’66, about 14K in ’67, about 21K in ’68, and about 24K in ’69. So T&C production did go up noticeably after Olds and Buick abandoned the “true full-size” wagon market, especially towards the end of the ’60s. I have to think Chrysler was really making an effort to exploit GM’s absence from this segment, and the ’70 Estate Wagon was intended to put a stop to that sooner rather than later.
Would I be correct that the 70 Buick wagon and especially the 71 Olds and Buick wagons took a bite out of the T&C? I remember the Olds particularly being the most common and Chryslers seemed to become quite rare again.
Also worth pointing out is the fact the Vista-Cruiser and Sport Wagon not only were stretched and narrower intermediates on a wheelbase an inch longer than a full-sized Chevrolet wagon, but also as intermediates had the A-body engines and 2-speed automatics (Turbo Hydramatics and engines of 400 cid and larger were not offered in these cars until 1968), plus the smallish 9.5-inch brake drums of other mid-sized cars (all full-sized GM cars in that period had 11-12 inch drums). And they did not have the towing capacity of properly equipped full-sized Chevrolet and Pontiac wagons. Also, Olds and Buick dropping out of the full-sized wagon market for 1965 helped to sell quite a few Mercury Colony Park, Dodge Polara Crestwood and Chrysler Town and Country wagons. GM’s own Pontiac division sold a very good number of Catalina Safaris and they also had the upscale Bonneville Safari which was clearly priced in mid-level Buick/Oldsmobile territory. And a Catalina Safari with a 389 cid V8 and optional Turbo-Hydramatic transmission sold for not much more money than a Vista Cruiser with a 330 V8/Jetaway or Sport Wagon with a 300/Super Turbine 300 – but the Pontiac was a true full-sized with larger brakes (you could even get those 8-lug aluminum wheels with integral drums as an option), bigger engines (up to 376 horsepower), 3-speed automatic, and real room for 6- or 9-passengers (three in the third seat a bit cramped but plenty of room for two compared to Ford’s side-facing bucket seats) – and towing capacity of up to 6,000 pounds. And for less money than a Vista Cruiser or Sport Wagon, Chevrolet dealers had the low-end Biscayne and Bel Air wagons and the more popular Impala – plus the Chevelle 300 and Malibu mid-sized haulers (on the regular 115-inch wheelbase).
…
Love it; one of the heights (hehehe) of US exoticism. According to CA, the idea came from an advanced studio focused on wagons and is credited solely to a guy called Pete Wozena.
The Oldsmobile Vista Cruiser – my favorite wagon of all time, especially the 2nd generation. Inspired by the Vista-Dome passenger car, I believe.
I don’t miss green interiors, but do miss blue and red ones.
There was a garden-nursery in Brooklyn,NY near Washington cemetary. The owner had an out or service Vista Cruiser, and used it as a mini greenhouse to start and grow houseplants. It was so hot and humid in it, just the right environmen for the job. He claimed that it worked like a champ.
Looks like the California Zephyr (with Budd-built cars) depicted behind that white Vista Cruiser, a good PR choice except it was losing money for its operating railroads.
The railroads were being regulated as if there was no Federally-subsidized Interstate Highway System, and no jet airliners, to compete with them. They couldn’t discontinue unprofitable intercity passenger service without permission from the ICC. Nationalization, via Amtrak, was the final solution to this absurdity.
Whether the train is the California Zephyr or not, I did have the pleasure of riding it for short periods before it was cancelled in 1970.
Nothing like those Vista-Domes in the world, but Amtrak’s Superliner vista-lounges are pretty cool, just no straight-ahead visibility.
Trivia: Denver & Rio Grande Western continued to operate their leg of the train (renamed Rio Grande Zephyr) until Amtrak took it over in 1983.
I always thought it a nice touch that the final B-body wagons, the ’91-’96 Roadmaster Estate Wagon and ’91-’92 Custom Cruiser, had a partial “vista” treatment with the forward glass “bubble” standard. They didn’t have the side panels and the roof raise was very slight, but it’s there. I don’t think it was available on the Caprice Estate but I could be wrong.
And the rear-facing third seat on those left plenty of luggage space in that huge tail section; you merely had to climb over it, or vault in from the second seat, if you wanted to sit there when luggage was present. (Never mind the possibility of it all slamming into you in a panic stop…)
“But still; it’s a bit odd, with Chevy and Pontiac selling full size wagons, and Buick and Olds selling these smaller ones, all the way through 1970 (Buick did bring their full size wagon back for 1970). The A-Body was a bit narrower, and three across seating was never going to be quite as comfortable as in the B-Body.”
Another oddity is that Oldsmobile and Buick did not wind down production of the stretched A-body wagons and resume production of B-body wagons in the same manner.
Buick re-introduced a B-body wagon for 1970, the Estate Wagon. When they did, they immediately dropped the stretched-wheelbase, extra-glass A-body wagon, so 1969 was the last year the Sportwagon was sold in that form. Confusingly, the Sportwagon name continued for 1970, but it was now moved to a regular A-body wagon, essentially a Skylark wagon in all but name. It would continue in that capacity until 1972. After that, the Sportwagon name disappeared. (There never was a Skylark wagon. Up through 1969, the regular A-body wagon was always badged as a Special, not a Skylark. For 1970, the Special name disappeared, but because the Sportwagon name had become available for use, the regular A-body wagon took on that name.)
Olds didn’t re-introduce a B-body wagon until the 1971 model year. So unlike the Sportwagon, the 1970 Vista Cruiser continued to use the stretched-wheelbase, extra-glass body. Even when Olds got a B-body wagon for 1971, the Custom Cruiser, it continued to sell the Vista Cruiser in stretched-wheelbase, extra-glass form, through the end of the then-current A-body styling generation in 1972. So during 1971-72, Olds had wagons in three sizes: Cutlass Cruiser (regular A-body), Vista Cruiser (stretched A-body), and Custom Cruiser (B-body). The stretched-wheelbase, extra-glass wagon was not carried over with the 1973 A-body restyle. The Vista Cruiser name continued through the 1973-77 styling generation, but it was now a Cutlass subseries, and was simply the top trim level of Cutlass (regular A-body) wagon.
Actually the full sized GM wagons rode on the C body chasis….Electra and Ninety Eight with their 127 inch wheelbase…The B body was only 124 inch.
Actually, no. The C was a lengthened B then; a 3″ longer front end. But the clamshell wagons rode on their own distinct frame, which accommodated the unique leaf-spring rear suspension, and which of course was longer, by 3″ than the respective B and C sedans. Strictly speaking, these wagons should have a body designation unique to them.
Are you sure about that? I’m positive that the stretch is behind the rear seat. I can’t see GM tooling up 2 sets of hoods and fenders when they could get away with one,.
Sorry; I somewhat bungled that. Let me clarify my point:
There were five distinct wheelbase lengths on the ’71-’76 big GM cars.
Chevy: 122″, wagons: 125″
Pontiac, Olds 88, Buick LeSabre: 124″; wagons: 127″
Olds 98, Buick Electra, 127″
Cadillac: 130″ & 133″
What’s clear from this is that the Chevy used a shorter front end, as the sedan body mid-sections were the same as the Pontiac, Olds and Buick’s. The extended B.
Meaning , there were two B Bodies.
The Cs obviously had a 3″ longer rear wb extension, as did all the wagons. So what does that make the Chevy wagon? A “B-C”?
And I’d be willing to bet (but could be wrong) that the frames for the wagons were not the same as the sedan frames, because of the unique wagon rear suspension.
While I’m not clear on exactly what makes this so, it’s my understanding that the 1971-76 GM fullsize wagons were technically considered to be stretched B-bodies, not C-bodies; it’s just a coincidence that the B-O-P wagons happen to have the same wheelbase as the Buick and Oldsmobile C-body sedans. That having been said, the wagons were clearly more different from the B-body sedans than the wagons in other generations of GM fullsize cars were.
On the wheelbase lengths, I’m not sure if any of the reported figures are rounded, but I think I’ve seen the 1971-76 Chevy sedans listed at 121.5″, which would mean the Chevy wagons have a wheelbase 3.5″ longer than the sedans, rather than 3″ on the others.
Also, while it doesn’t really affect any of Paul’s analysis, I believe that there was an additional wheelbase length or two that was unique to Pontiac in 1971-72. In 1971-72 Pontiac had two wheelbases for its sedans, 123″ (for Catalinas) and 126″ (for Bonnevilles and Grand Villes). Starting in 1973, all Pontiac fullsize sedans shared their wheelbase with their Olds and Buick B-body counterparts (124″). Pontiac wagons shared their wheelbase with Olds and Buick (127″) throughout the entire 1971-76 period, however, so there was never a uniquely Pontiac wagon body/wheelbase at any time in the 1971-76 era; the Pontiac wagons were always the same as Olds and Buick.
MCT: I keep forgetting about the curious case of the Pontiac sedans of this era. We need a proper article on all of these ’71-’76 variations, including figuring out just where these various stretches occurred.
And yes, I did round the Chevy wb up to 122.
It isn’t actually a coincidence that the wagons share the C body wheelbase. The wagons use C body rear door parts, though the wagons have window frames. Thus, the wagon has wheelbase of a C body, if the C is available in that brand.
Wasn’t there yet another wheelbase used for the ’71-72 (-73?) Pontiac Grand Ville sedans, longer than even the Bonneville’s for those years? I recall these having an obvious stretch between the rear doors and the rear wheel openings, but photos I’m looking at don’t show that, but do have a thick C pillar that looks like those on Olds/Buick C bodies from those years. I’m unclear on how extended-length Grand Villes differ from standard B or C bodies, as the rear seat dimensions are the same as in Bonnevilles or even Catalinas, and I can’t find figures on luggage space. So I don’t know where that extra space wound up, or how the stretched B bodies differ from actual C bodies.
Hmmmm, this is interesting. I know the ’71 to ’76 C bodies had a longer wheelbase too–in Oldsmobile’s case, the Ninety-Eight was 127″ while the 88 was 124″ (ditto for the respective Buicks). One of the reasons my non-wagon owning parents bought base C bodies was due to the increased rear seat room. It was the biggest back they could get without going to a wagon. According to J. “Kelly” Flory’s excellent book American Cars, 1960-1972, the Ninety-Eight was 6″ longer overall than the 88, so there were 3″ extra somewhere besides the wheelbase. I would have said it was at the rear, not the front, as I can’t imagine the cars having different front clips. But, luggage capacity was the same between the Ninety-Eight and 88, so I really can’t be sure where they put it.
Sorry for the late reply. Keep in mind that back then each GM division operated quite independently of the others. So you would see variations among divisions.
When I was in grade school in the ’70s a friend of mine’s parents had a ’65 Buick Skylark Sport Wagon. Really neat cars. How is the food at Burrito Boy?
As opposed to the vista-liner train car, I always believed that the styling inspiration for the Vista Cruiser was the Greyhound Scenicruiser. Same deal, raised roof in the rear, higher side windows and two forward facing high “windshields”.
It was also made by GM – the model “PD4501”.
So I heard too, but that didn’t stop their copyrighters from alluding to Vista-Dome cars, as shown above. These, by the way, were in trains usually pulled by GM-EMD locomotives. EMD has since been sold off; GE now dominates the N. American locomotive market. How are the mighty fallen!
Peugeot put a full length glass panel in its 407 wagons but deleted the 3 row option making the 406 I had their last really big wagon.
The current 508 wagon is bigger (longer) than the 406 and 407 wagons.
The Vista Cruiser had a starring role in this show…
IT’S NOT A PIECE OF JUNK. It’s a Vista Cruiser, you can literally “cruise the vistas” in it.” – Red Foreman
My first car was a 1965 Vista Cruiser. My father bought it new and he gave it to me in 1972. The interior of that car was huge. I still remember driving it around all by my self and enjoying all that space.
It had the 330 V-8 with a 2 bbl carb, and an auto trans. It is hard for me to believe now that GM would equip a car with a two speed transmission, but they did, and I drove one.
I only had the car for around a year, then I traded it back to my dad for his 1968 Volvo Amazon. He kept it for another 9 years. Then it was in an accident and he decided it was not worth fixing. It was white with a blue interior. Great memories.
Very interesting post on one of the most interesting wagons, thanks. It can’t be a conincidence that the most versatile/functional wagon layout echoes that of a minivan.
In a case of the CC Effect, I just saw a mid-1960s Vista Cruiser on the road last weekend. The Vista Cruiser was towing a trailer carrying a 1960s style hot rod, so I’m guessing they were on the way to a car show.
My first car was a green 1965 Buick Sportwagon. I inherited it in high school when Mom could no longer drive due to her worsening multiple sclerosis. I drove it my first three years of college. I was envious of my fraternity brothers who had cool cars like Mustangs and Camaros and Javelins. And that two-speed automatic transmission was horrid – a car that heavy needed a three speed. Still, I was very popular when we did late night runs for burgers – we could cram more frat boys in that car than an in any Mustang. And it was great for ski trips to the mountains east of Seattle – we could fold 1/3 of the back seat down for skis and still have room for four. And on sunny days the views of the mountains from the back seat were awesome!
The only problem with the Vista Cruiser concept is that while the kids in the back got the benefit of the extra glass, there was nothing special for Mom and Dad in the front seat. Too bad there weren’t any moonroofs then.
I’ve always thought the modern equivalent to the Vista Cruiser and Sport Wagon was the extended-length Trailblazer EXT and Envoy XL SUVs. Take a mid-size BOF RWD wagon and stretch it to fit a third row, giving a family vehicle that’s not as ponderously wide as a full-size. The roof was even raised to make room for the stadium seating in the third row.
I have a buddy that tows his ’67 442 drag car behind his ’70 Vista Cruiser. Makes for quite a sight going down the road here.
Growing up in So Cal, I didn’t see many of the Vista Cruisers/Sportwagons until the 2nd Gen, when big blocks were offered. Until then, T&C’s and Colony Parks were the upscale wagon of choice in my neighborhood, with a couple of Bonneville’s thrown in for good measure.
Dad replaced our VW 23-window Type2 with a ‘66 Vista Cruiser, black w/red interior. Perfect stablemate to his black ‘65 Fleetwood retired from funeral home duty.
Lots of miles covered by my brother and me back in the tailgunner seat.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B-H8IMeGHD4
Evel Kneivel and a Vista Cruiser.
My dad chose a burgundy-red ’66 VC when I was about 11 or 12. I thought it was the coolest wagon ever (y’know, as wagons go) ’cause of the vista-glass. My brother and I were always stuck in the 3rd seat while our older sisters got the 2nd row, with just enough room in the far back for the luggage of a family of 6 to go on vacations. I would absolutely love to have that car back again now!
*(Photo is not of our car but looks exactly like it, or my memory of it. I found this photo of the beautifully restored ’66 VC somewhere on the Internet. Sorry I can’t give credit.)
When I was a kid, my Mom and Dad had a ’72 Vista Cruiser. It was brown with brown interior.
Oh. They also had a ’64 Buick mid-size wagon.
I just put this picture as my cover page on FB. Wow the comments! Lots of likes!
I’m a little confused with the pictured car. It has chrome trim around the door frames and other windows, but no trim around the wheel openings and rocker panels or the chrome spear on the hood. It is pretty old so who knows what the history is.
A company called American Quality Coach turned first-gen Toronados into 8-door, 6-wheel airport limo wagons called the Jetway 707, which had a higher roof all around than the Toro coupe and a Vista Cruiser-style raised roof towards the back, with a similar skylight style as the actual Vista Cruiser (a Google image search will yield numerous photos of the Jetway 707 from different angles). A much-shortened version of these with the standard wagon configuration of four doors, four wheels, and far less length is what Oldsmobile should have built themselves – basically a Vista Cruiser wagon with the Toronado as its base rather than the Cutlass. This would have yielded not only a full-size-wide interior, but a flat floor to make both the first and second row center positions comfortable. Ideally, IRS would have been employed to help out forward-facing third-row legroom, though I don’t believe Toros had this until 1979. The second-gen Toro (71-78) shared the dashboard, door panels (in early years) and many interior and chassis bits with the Custom Cruiser already; how hard would it have been to give it the Toro’s FWD and flat floor? The innovative Unitized Power Package’s space-efficiency benefits went largely to waste in everything but the GMC Motorhome.
Neighbors had a ’64 Vista and when I babysat their sons they allowed me to drive it to Towson Elementary’s playground for their baseball practices. I’d just gotten my license (trusting souls!) and really enjoyed it,the 330 and Jetaway had plenty of pep and it drove much nicer than my folk’s ’63 Ford Country Sedan. Which did have the 3rd seat, and it did fold completely flat as the seat cushions were snapped in and removed to fold the seat and tossed in the back or removed. When the 2nd row was folded one could lie down completely in that long load space. It became my first car in 1970 and was very handy for a college Sophomore for camping and hauling…and… lol.
I led a deprived childhood. Although I remember cramming in the back of a Porsche 356, and the way back of a 88” wheelbase Land Rover and a VW Squareback, I’m pretty sure I never rode in a Vista-cruiser.