As my parents celebrate their 50th anniversary this winter, I can appreciate, among other things, that they’ve stayed together long enough that I never had to deal with the prospect of a stepsibling. The introduction of a new “parent” would have caused enough trauma for a kid who almost ran away upon seeing his first substitute teacher, but having to share a bathroom with even more little people??? Other than my sister, who already claimed it as her second bedroom??? Make me a hobo pie and send me on my way, I’m having none of it. Buick fans, however, are more than happy with their stepchildren, which is handily the nickname they’ve bestowed on their 1968 and 1969 intermediates.
In a way, Buick intermediates were always stepchildren. Even my 1965 Skylark is less common and more commonly inexpensive than its brethren, including the Cutlass, Chevelle, and LeMans. One must turn the calendar to 1970 before Buick began to earn the respect its divisional siblings were afforded. Even today, the 1970-’72 GS models are among the only Buick muscle cars to truly equal the esteem of their GM rivals.
Nevertheless, that was not the case in 1968, when General Motors introduced sweeping updates to its entire A-Body lineup. Road testers swooned over the new GTO in particular, which earned “Car of the Year” honors from Motor Trend (although many dispute the validity of that long-standing award). The Buicks, on the other hand, earned a lukewarm reception. Detractors felt that their styling lagged behind the other new A-Bodies, although anyone viewing one from the front would be hard-pressed to find any obvious flaws.
The general consensus is that GM’s wayward mining of nostalgia might have been to blame. The faux-sweepspear pressed into the side of this ’68 Skylark terminated at a squared-off wheel arch that wasn’t anywhere near as racy as the full cutout of a contemporary LeMans.
Here is a 1969 GTO for comparison.
Still, time has a way of making people forget, and to most, the 1968 and ’69 Buick A-Bodies are just cool old cars, although they’ll rarely be as valuable as an equivalent Chevelle. I recently had the good fortune to photograph three 1968 models on the same weekend, and there is a touch of family nostalgia for me in each.
When I was in college, my uncle rehabilitated a ’69 Buick Special Deluxe post coupe, and we both spent the summer at the local skill center performing rust repairs, including installing the last new quarter panels in stock at Sherman Parts. I would do the welding and he and I both would do the cutting and fitment. The shop instructor was an old-school bodyman, and he did the painting, which was about a half-degree too shiny over our decent-but-not-great bodywork. Although our work would win no awards from Chip Foose, or even a local bondo-slinger, my uncle had a running and driving car that fall. He sold the car within months for some reason, but working on that car is still a fond memory, and I learned a lot.
Unlike my uncle, many owners of “stepchildren” are fiercely loyal to their cars, at least from what I’ve seen on my favorite Buick forums. Typically reliable Buick mechanical bits form the foundation of all this conservatively controversial styling. The Stage 1 package was available on the Buick’s big-block 400, now in its second year of production. Skylarks were propelled by the new-for-’68 350 small block, which was unrelated to any other GM 350, which is a fact that seems to confuse a lot of people who are just learning about old cars. Buick engines have their quirks (don’t they all?), mostly relating to their oiling system, but when operated within their design parameters, they lasted a long time.
Buick interiors were always well-fitted, perhaps a step above their stablemates, with the “Fasten Seat Belts” admonition placed front and center on the ribbon speedometer being the only thing that gives away Buick’s inherent conservatism. This GS400’s rare four-speed option (without console) replaces the more common column shifter…
Which can be seen here on this bench-seat-equipped Skylark convertible (in dark blue, one of my favorite colors). The owner of this car replaced the, OK I’ll say it, ugly original steering wheel with a Buick sport wheel, which was used all the way up through the 1970s.
The original wheel can be seen on this Skylark, which is equipped with a console and neat “basket-handle” shifter for its automatic transmission. Chances are good that this Skylark, like many, is equipped with a two-speed Super Turbine 300 automatic (which is NOT a Powerglide, regardless of what all the Facebook Marketplace ads say). The 1968 version lost its “Switch-Pitch” torque converter, but it would still be a couple years before the Turbo 350 took over light-duty automatic duty exclusively. All General Motors divisions suffered with the two-speed for too long, but the ST300 was at least reliable. It just wasn’t very exciting.
These 1968-72 GM A-Bodies have never interested me as much as their boxier predecessors (a really cool ’69 LeMans hardtop that needed work notwithstanding), but these three Buicks cried out for attention on this particular weekend.
Cinderella waiting for her Prince Charming is too obvious a metaphor in this case, but I think the “stepchild” moniker works for these underappreciated collectibles. Although I grew up in a house without stepsiblings, I can sympathize with those who had to make it work; after all, many have used that experience to become extremely adaptive adults (I’m married to one). These Buicks seem to have found a home with people who love them for what they are, and there’s got to be a message in there somewhere.
I can’t help feeling the ’68 Buick A-body was a bit frumpy. I’ve never been a fan of the ’68–’69 A-body two-doors because the semi-fastback tail looks awfully bulbous. The Cutlass probably pulls it off best, but the Buick exacerbates the problem with the Sweepspear and the semi-skirted rear wheels, and the rear bumper looks pre-dented. It’s unfortunate because the ’65–’67 cars are really very handsome — less flamboyant than a GTO, but that’s not the worst thing, and the Buick styled wheels are always a nice touch.
I couldn’t agree with you more. It came off as anything but youthful and sporty. I see Aaron assiduously avoided a full shot of one. 🙂
The rear passenger windows were elegant. The side sweep was not. And yes, the pre-dented bumper. I remember seeing plenty of these in the 70s where the ends of the bumper hung up to an inch away from the body.
The quarter windows are far from the most egregious feature, but they’re too reminiscent of an early ’50s Nash for 1968, in my estimation.
I never cared for the styling on the ’68-69 Skylarks-the “s” curve along the side of the body reminded me too much of the ’58 Buicks. By comparison, the ’65-67 Buick intermediates I find extremely attractive-some what conservative compared with the Pontiac intermediates of the same period but still quite attractive.
Some 20 years ago I was looking around on The List of Craig and came across a 68-69 Skylark a 2 door post with a 6 cyl and dog dish caps. I think it even had a 3 on the tree.
I never care much for the 68-69 bodies but if I could have I would have snatched that one up. Probably rare then and even more so now.
One of our elderly neighbors had a pea green Special DeLuxe wagon with dog dish hubcaps when I was a kid (late ’80s, early ’90s). It was in good shape aside from a bit of quarter rust, but the dangling carrot was a bumper sticker from AAA that said, “If you must drink and drive, drink milk. Stay alive.” He eventually had it for sale for somewhere around $3000 from what I remember; it must have sold, because that was the last time I saw it around.
The yellow works as does the black, but not the red, perhaps those first colors though reinforce (or support) the slightly dowdy appearance (in comparison with what else was on offer as you noted).
But the steering wheel would have me climbing back out of it in short order no matter the color outside. It almost looks Citroen-like with the one fat central spoke but then the two horizontal support spokes were added that just seem all kinds of no. “If the wheel itself can’t be square then we’ll rectilinearize everything else about it although there are no other straight lines whatsoever anywhere on this car”.
We had a sedan in the family until this century. I thought the wheel was awful for driving. The vertical spoke is far too big to grip, and the others and the rim too small.
The car had a 350, auto, power steering, and A/C, but manual brakes that required a lot of force. No wonder my tiny great aunt only drove it 4,000 miles in 7 years.
Yes, that wheel is….unfortunate, shall we say. Maybe designed deliberately to encourage sales of the optional sport wheel, or am I being cynical?
Oh, and don’t tell those guys over at BL that a steering wheel can’t be square…..
All the non-Cadillac GM divisions had to deal with both a shorter wheelbase (112” vs.115”) in 1968, as well as the introduction of a more “coke-bottle” external shape. I think each division solved the puzzle rather successfully, in its own distinct way.
If one assumes that Buick was a baby-step down from Cadillac in the GM pecking order, the Skylark styling worked rather well, given the constraints. That side profile view of the convertible shows a car with visual length and well-distributed heft, even though the wheelbase is rather short and the rear wheels are tucked way up under what there is of the rear seat.
Buicks are not my cup of tea, generally, but I would give the exterior design team good marks for doing what they could with something “not Buick friendly” as a starting point.
The 1965 Skylark Gran Sport was my favorite muscle car back then. Some of the others were faster, but I just liked it.
I had one. Black. Factory 4 speed. Wish I could find and afford another one. I’m 69 and it’s my all time favorite of all the many cars I’ve owned.
I really like the 1966 – 1972 GM “A” body intermediates, even though they changed bodies in ’68. Of these, the ’68 and ’69 Buicks were the strangest looking but now with the passage of time, they look pretty cool. Though I’d still rather have the Olds, Pontiac or Chevy counterpart.
I am a Mopar fan first, but have always appreciated Buicks. My cousin had a 69 GS400, the same color yellow and it was fast as stink, no matter the styling, which I really like. Those Buicks always had verrry ample torque.
I’d love a 1972 Skylark convertible in, say, a medium blue with a white top and white interior in my fantasy garage. My wife would even agree, as this is one of the few cars she’d actually recognize at a car show. (This and a ’69 Charger 😉.)
The Chevelle may get all the glory, but these (IMHO) are more stylish, especially with the proper Buick road wheels.
And GTO(s) (and their tribute knock-offs) are almost as ubiquitous as Mustangs. I’m not saying I don’t like ’em – 442(s) too! – but seeing a Buick Skylark is always a treat.
I agree the bumpers always look dented and out of alignment on the 68-69 Buicks, both rear and front. I can take the side sweep and the semi-skirted rear wheel opening, but the bumpers give these the appearance of a grizzled beater. The pictures speak for themselves, in the last picture follow the gaps from the center point of the bottom of the grille outward, do the same with the yellow one on the rear. Every single 68-69 looks this way!
I will give it this, the 68-69 A bodies across the board seemed like more distinctive designs between divisions than the 1970 refreshes. I like the 70 Buick more than the 69 but it looks almost distinguishable from the 70 Chevelle in its side profile
The only one of these that ever looked good was the 4 door hardtop with fender skirts. That looks to me like the one they styled first, then did a cut and paste for the others.
My Aunt Eula (the wife of Uncle Bill from whom I bought the Model A) drove one of these, either a 68 or 69 4 door hardtop in gold paint, beige interior and a black vinyl roof. It was the only one of these Sylarks I ever thought looked decent. Even on that one, the back bumper never looked quite right – I’ll bet none of them did.
As always, color and equipment can make a car look very different from its stablemates. If one could ignore the sweep spear, this 4-door bears a strong resemblance to the 1967 Impala four-door hardtop, which I have lately come to believe is one of the most attractive cars of the 1960s.
One of the few cars in which the contrasting vinyl roof really helps cut the mass of the rear fender area, but not enough. Ours was all gold, with black carpet and dash and white vinyl seats. In memory, the gold darkened with age. The swoop worked so much better on the big Buicks. The pointy tail is one reason.
On big Buicks, the sweep doesn’t come down nearly so far relative to the wheelhouse — it crosses through the rear fender rather than dipping down ahead of it. The base of the rear window also doesn’t sweep up as much, even on two-door hardtops. This has the effect of making a Skylark Custom (with the rear skirts) look bulkier than a Wildcat, which was certainly a choice.
Profiles from the 1968 brochure:
http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/United%20States/Buick/1968_Buick/1968-Buick-Full-Line-Prestige-Brochure/slides/1968%20Buick%20Full%20Line%20Prestige%20Brochure-00a-01.html
I think I’d agree, which is the opposite of how I feel about the rest of the 4 door 68-72 A bodies, which look like mutilated coupes. The Buick version still has that awkward rear door cutline below the pillar but the o EGR wheelbase and greenhouse shape seems to take away the heavy look of the coupe
I momentarily considered buying a ’70 Skylark four-door hardtop in my college days as a year-round car. It was under three grand from what I remember, but I just couldn’t warm up to its droopy rear end. For some reason, it didn’t look so bad on the coupes, but these days, I’d be really excited to see a decent four-door hardtop.
Certainly no mistaking that for an Olds!
This generation was ugly.
No one wanted that side spear. It starts too high on the front fender and then just drags along the rear fender.
Why – with that that back bumper – it always looked like someone ran into it.
The straight contour lines down the center of the trunk? What’s with that on a car with so many curves?
The side rear windows are fine, but please for my eye’s sake – NO VINYL roof! There is simply no way to fit a vinyl roof on that design without creating more of a mess.
There is so much wrong with this design – I can’t believe it was approved for production.
Here’s the Japanese attempt at this design – another fail, btw.
The 200sx is a copy of a copy, the non 5mph bumper design is clearly emulating the 1969 Mercury Cougar in it’s front end profile, carrying on the sweep with it
Oh!!That “65” black one is for me!!
Disclaimer: I may be biased since I’ve owned my ’69 dr hardtop for 11 years. Rear bumper fit is fine, though I do question the “pre dented’ concave bit.
I prefer the ’69s slightly more open rear arches over the ’68 version, and love the sweep spear.
Of the GM A bodies, the Skylark is the rarest- in Australia at least. Though I’ve only seen one in North America. I get nothing but compliments, and I’m vain enough to enjoy them.
Photo of a drag car with radiused rear arches from V8Buick.
Arron, are you a member there?
Yes, I’ve been a member since 2003 when I bought my Skylark, although I don’t post regularly. It’s a great website with some nice people. I was looking for a stock fan for the Skylark a couple years ago, and a member just gave me a really nice one for free.
Indeed it is. I’ve made friends through it, and Anne & I had a Vancouver tour, top down in an Electra convertible from another member.
Lakeside Raceway for Chrome Bar Bonanza. On again the weekend if the rain stays away.
That’s a nice looking Skylark, Chris. I love the color combination.
Thanks Aaron. Signal Red, vinyl roof. It’s a 10 footer, but we love it. And no Chrome Bar tomorrow, too wet.
I own a 1965 Buick special two door post coop and have been using it for 20 years now as a regular driver. It took me two years to restore it. It has a 300-2 with the 300 supper turbine transmission the original stater switch was on the carburetor linkage and never worked well that way so I hooked it up with the break light switch and that works great 👍. This is for the switch pitch torque converter. I have a 67 GS 340-4 that I’m thinking of using in it someday although it now gets 18/20 so I’m happy with the outcome and it has been a extremely dependable automobile.. It’s my chevelle Rebel seeing that’s what most people think it is these days..
This is my 1970 GS. I like Buicks much better than the GMs they were faster in 1970 too.
In High School in Michigan 1969 my buddy Tim’s Mom has a yellow 1968 Buick GS-400 Convertible. It was GORGEOUS ! My dad let me drive his 68 Olds 442. WE HAD FUN !!!