This Buick Skylark is a tough old cookie. Some time ago, Paul shared some photos of it taken by Cohort contributor William Oliver. I instantly recognized it, having photographed it around years ago in Manhattan before it suffered some unfortunate collision damage. Let’s look back at better times for the ol’ bird and examine the history of the X-Body Skylark.
The Skylark name had been in regular use by Buick until 1972. When it came time to redesign Buick’s intermediate A-Body model, Buick dusted off an even older nameplate, Century, and put the Skylark name back in its cage.
While Buick had shared platforms with other GM divisions for years, there was generally a significant level of visual differentiation. Not so for the 1973 Apollo, a hastily dolled-up version of the Chevrolet Nova in the same vein as the rebadged Pontiac Ventura II and Oldsmobile Omega. Sure, the Apollo had an optional Buick 350 V8 but otherwise the baby Buick was little more than a Nova with some extra brightwork and different details – the standard Chevy 250 six was the same as that in the Nova.
GM’s introduction of the three Nova clones seemed prescient as, just after its launch, the oil crisis led to fuel shortages and higher gas prices. Despite this, the Apollo wasn’t a huge seller – in its first year, Buick sold 32,793 while Oldsmobile sold 59,643 Omegas.
When GM redesigned the compact X-Body for 1975, Buick also received a version. The Apollo name was carried over for the sedan but the coupe and hatchback dusted off the Skylark moniker. All the redesigned X-Bodies had clean, crisp lines and various mechanical improvements such as new front suspension, a thicker front stabilizer bar and front disc brakes.
As before, the difference was in the details. All four X-Bodies used the same body but the Buicks and the Oldsmobiles (and, later, some Pontiac Phoenix models) had wraparound taillights. Front-end design was reasonably well-differentiated among the four although, interestingly, these supposedly premium X-Body variants never got the newly legal and very fashionable rectangular headlights lavished on other GM models – of the X cars, only the Phoenix and ’79 Nova received them.
The base engine in the Skylark was now Buick’s own 231 cubic-inch V6, a powerplant resurrected for 1975 and which continued to be improved over the years and survived into the following century; the Apollo continued with the 250 cubic-inch six from Chevy. Optional engines consisted of Oldsmobile’s 260 cubic-inch V8 and the Buick 350 cubic-inch V8, the latter of which came with either a two- or four-barrel carburetor. A column-mounted three-speed manual was standard on six-cylinder models but a three-speed auto was the popular choice and the only transmission available with the V8s.
GM was embracing the concept of more “European-inspired” trim levels and so both the Apollo and Skylark were available in top-line S/R (Sport/Rallye) trim, in the same vein as the Oldsmobile Omega Salon, Chevrolet Nova LN and Pontiac Ventura SJ.
The S/R, available in all three body styles and with all engines, featured cloth-and-vinyl bucket seats, a console-mounted shifter for the mandatory automatic, a stalk-mounted headlight dimmer, rallye steering wheel and carpeted door trim, as well as a firmer suspension tune.
Not all Skylarks were “little limousines” as its successor was sometimes referred to. This well-worn New York City example is a base 1978 Skylark sedan, likely powered by the 231 cubic-inch V6; the Apollo name and the Chevy inline-six were dropped for 1976. GM’s game of musical engines continued through the rest of the Skylark’s run, the car varyingly using the Oldsmobile 260, Pontiac 301, Chevrolet 305, Chevrolet 350 and Buick 350. The Buick V6, however, was a constant.
There were cheaper Skylarks still. Like the Omega with its poverty-pack F-85 trim, the Skylark could be had as an S coupe for around $100 less than the regular Skylark coupe. The S forewent some minor niceties and came only with a vinyl bench seat. Brochures didn’t feature any photos of it, likely because it was just a price leader aimed at getting people into showrooms so they could leave with a more expensive car.
Though the Buick’s V6 produced just 105 hp at 3200 rpm and 185 ft-lbs at 2000 rpm, it weighed 200 pounds less than the optional V8s. It also stacked up well against the inline-six in the rival Ford Granada and Mercury Monarch. Though the Ford twins were quieter and more refined, they were slower and less fuel-efficient – Popular Science recorded the Skylark as reaching 60 mph in 16.6 seconds (versus 22.7 for the Ford) and achieving 18 mpg in the city (versus 12 for the Granada). The GM X-Body also had the edge in handling given its parts commonality with GM’s F-Body pony cars; the Ford twins had ponderous handling to match their cushy ride.
With their flossier styling and little-LTD driving experience, however, Ford’s premium compacts made bank, especially considering Ford retained the Maverick for truly budget-conscious buyers. Even the Mercury Monarch outsold the Skylark. For whatever reason, Buick did a lot better in this segment than Oldsmobile even though the latter brand was doing better in divisional sales.
One Skylark that sold poorly was the S/R, Buick’s attempts at offering a European-style concept met with indifference. The S/R trio were generally outsold 4-to-1 by the standard sedan alone. For 1978, Buick dropped any sporting pretences and, with it, the S/R trim; most of its features, bar its sportier suspension tune, moved to the new top-line Skylark Custom. A new Sport option package included the S/R’s mechanical improvements. While the take rate of this package is unknown, overall the Custom sold around three times as well as the previous year’s S/R.
The majority of buyers were happy to buy a standard Skylark just like this NYC example, however – the V6 accounted for the vast majority of sales, typically 80-90%, while the regular Skylark continued to outsell the top-line model. The Skylark may not have been the last word in refinement or build quality but it was a steady seller and the mechanicals were durable. How else could this ’78 still be chugging along on the streets of New York City?
Photographed in the East Village, Manhattan in 2014.
Related Reading:
Vintage Review: 1975 Chevrolet Nova LN – Chevy’s Take On A BMW
Curbside Classic: 1978 Oldsmobile Omega – Grandma’s BMW
Cohort Classic: 1975-79 Pontiac Ventura & Phoenix – Seeking Greater Fortune
Don’t forget there was a 5th X body tooled up in 1975: Cadillac Seville
I still have my ’79 Seville, pewter with red leather/vinyl interior, direct port injected EFI Olds 350″ V8, single plane low rise aluminum intake manifold, TH400 transmission that lasted 85K miles, not many more miles than that on it now… also needed some sensors… an injector cleaned… only 1 MPG when I bought it cheap… 14 city/19 hiway… 16 MPG combined estimate… Top Speed 112 MPH GOVERNED… 4 wheel disc brakes…
Recently learned Sevilles cost more than full sized Cadillacs… (because they’re “European”?)… some Seville models were actually built in Europe for $100K…
These 5 sedans are nearly unique for the last 50 years in having a downward sloping beltline, which helped the rear seat feel less cramped than it was. The chrome side window frames make a world of difference on the outside’s perceived richness. That and glossy paint.
The magazines say, over and over, why don’t you make your cars more European? GM offers versions more European, and they don’t sell. Eventually, they all become cramped and firm riding (for safety/liability reasons), and Americans switch to Asian brands, crossovers, SUVs, and giant pickups.
These were quite popular when I was a teen. They seemed to sell well to older buyers who wanted the prestige of the Buick name at a comparatively low price. A fair number were sold to people who traded-in mid-sized Specials and Skylarks from the 1960s. Inflation, I guess.
I can only imagine walking into a Buick dealer in ’78, seeing the Skylark, thinking it looks a bit like a Grandma car, then seeing the Buick Century slant back and exclaiming out loud “Ay Dios Mio!” Skylark for the win.
Or waiting out, after hearing the early press release hype for the upcoming Skylark, featuring front wheel drive, great space utilization, and excellent mileage.
Just looking at early illustrations and pre-production photos of the 1975 Nova sedan lineup and the Cadillac Seville, I knew there was some sort of relationship. They shared an uncanny similarity in their unique proportions, and scale.
I really liked the look then.
Too bad, so many Novas and derivatives in this generation, were sold looking low end, with police hub caps, lacking bumper rub strips, vinyl interiors, etc. Their often austere appearance, usually nixed for me, any European-like style they may have possessed. GM should have made alloy and styled wheels, a more commonly accessible factory option for buyers.
Never liked that cheap-looking C-pillar vent cover. Appeared like it came off a refrigerator. Same for the too wide, and busy-looking B-pillar trim, on the coupe versions. Problem shared with the Monza coupe.
From my recollection, quite a few of these “luxury” X-body cars languished on Buick and Oldsmobile dealer lots, largely ignored buy your typical luxury car buyers. Then, around the end of the model year, dealers were eager to get them sold, and the bargain hunters were able to snatch them up at prices that weren’t significantly higher than the Chevy dealers were asking for Novas.
The Ford Granada at 12 mpg and a 22 second zero-to-sixty is just awful, even for the max-malaise mid-70s. And, yet, Ford sold a ton of them.
Selling traditional luxury in a smaller, more manageable, ‘international’ scale, was a hot marketing angle. Besides any association to Mercedes-Benz. Even if it wasn’t legitimate.
It could have may have been more ppular if they gave it more Buickness like the Collonade Regal. Too close to a Nova. Many folks wanted a smaller car for easier driving. The Seville was decent but not Mercedes level, even a 250 or 280E, but likely suceded due to not being a whale and looking like a real Cadillac. Even a downsized Coupe Deville could be a handful with its long hood and low seats.
@ Daniel M: came here to express my distaste for the vent cover too. Even as I boy I thought it looked cheap. I imagine it probably hid a body seam between roof and 1/4 panel.