(Update: this was a pre-production car; the actual production Sport Wagon came standard with the 210 hp 300 CID V8. These wagons had a mid-year introduction) The first years of the 1960s were GM’s experimental-creative period. Corvair, “Rope-drive” Tempest, aluminum V8 and compact V6, IFS on medium and even big trucks, among others. Most were dead ends and soon replaced by more conventional solutions. One of the main ones were the Y-Body compacts (Tempest, Special and F-85), which were replaced in 1964 by the very conventional BOF A-Bodies.
But GM wasn’t totally out of the Motorama era; they decided to reinvent the station wagon, which had of course become a massively popular family hauler segment, and one that Ford was particularly successful with. GM decided to replace the B-Body Buick and Olds wagons, which had never really sold that well and replace them with an A-Body wagon that was stretched in two directions: backwards and upwards. The results made for one of the more intriguing and compelling packages; a roomy family hauler with three forward-facing seats and a bubble-top roof, which had both stylistic and practical benefits.
Was it another GM experimental dead-end?
Back then M/T made a point of generally not commenting on the styling of the cars they tested; they felt it was too subjective. But in the case of the Buick Sportwagon and F-85 Vista Cruiser, they had no choice, as the bubbletop roof was such a key element. They noted that it was likely to be successful just because it was different, although that didn’t really turn out to be the case. And they noted the two practical benefits: enhanced visibility for the passengers in rows 2 and 3, especially when on vacations and in the mountains.
But what was the real motivation to stretch the 115″ wb A-Body platform to 120″ and then add the glassy raised roof? Well, the obvious one was to make room for a forward facing third seat, which had two significant benefits: it of course allowed those sitting back there a view of where Dad was taking them on vacation instead of from where they were leaving from. And it enabled a not insignificant of not exactly large inside luggage compartment behind that third seat. That was the big bugaboo about all the other wagons with rear (or side) facing rear-most seats: there was literally no interior luggage space, as the Niedermeyers found out with their ’65 Coronet wagon: it all had to go into a roof-top luggage “bag” strapped to the roof rails.
But why didn’t GM do this to their B-Body wagons? Well, it would have required lengthening their wheelbases too, as GM eventually did with their 1971 “clamshell” wagons. I think GM was hedging their bets, and wanted to try this approach first. And there’s another factor: the Buick and Olds B-Body wagons had their bodies built by an outside supplier, the Iona Body Company. That likely crimped volumes and profitability, so Buick and Olds saw a relatively expedient way to build a “full-size” wagon on their new A-Body for less money, and by giving it the bubbletop roof and forward facing third seat, a presumed advantage against the competition.
We’ll check in on how that turned out at the end and let’s get back to the review itself.
It should be pointed out that the tested wagon was a two-seat version, but nevertheless, it had 6.4 cubic feet more total storage capacity than the B-Body LeSabre wagon. The argument for the two-seat wagon was a bit weaker, since a cheaper 115″ Special wagon was also available, but for those that were taken by the glassed-in roof, presumably it had some appeal. Sales were roughly split 50/50 for the two versions.
A pre-production Sport Wagon was tested at GM’s Arizona paving grounds, which included a number of back-country roads in scenic terrain, and the testers did appreciate the views afforded by the extra glass. Thanks to the deep tint, the Arizona sun didn’t bake the occupants, despite the lack of a/c; presumably this was not in the peak of summer? Or folks were hardier back then.
The tester was equipped with the standard 155 hp 225 CID Buick V6 teamed with the Super Turbine 300 transmission, a nominally two-speed unit. Not surprisingly, performance was quite leisurely; 0-60 came in 16.5 seconds. That was with two passengers; one can only speculate what it would have been with a full load. The optional 300 CID V8, either in 210 or 250 hp version was highly recommended for most uses.
Given that the V6 had to be driven flat-out much of the time, any fuel economy advantage was likely little to none over the V8s; possibly the opposite, actually. The Olds Vista Cruiser came standard with a 330 CID V8.
The drum brakes were just adequate, but not really up to hauling heavy loads in the mountains due to rapid fade. The suspension was a strong suit, with a somewhat firm ride that yielded better than average handling. Understeer was very light, not surprisingly given that wagons, especially this one with all that extra heavy glass, tend to have a much more balanced F/R weight distribution.
Quality was up to Buick standards. Seating position and steering wheel location were good. The second seat could carry three in “reasonable comfort” and the third seat could hold three in a pinch, but was much more suited to two. But head and leg room were deemed adequate in both of the rear positions. This was really the key element here, as comfort in rear-facing third seats was generally iffy. But did it matter, since realistically it was going to be kids most if not all of the time back there? And might not having the kids face to the rear have possible benefits, as in not hearing their arguments and such?
M/T concludes with noting that these lwb intermediate wagons “creates an odd situation for both…this puts them up in the standard sized class, where they’ll be competing against their larger brothers (from Buick and Olds) as well as Ford, Plymouth, Chevrolet and Dodge”.
A quick look at the sales numbers for 1964 shows that Olds buyers clearly preferred the 88 wagon over the Vista Cruisers, 17,346 to 3,394. Buick did better with its Sport Wagon vs. the LeSabre wagon, 13,653 to 10,520. Of course the B-Body wagons went away in 1965, and sales did improve some for the A-Long wagons, but they never did catch on significantly and failed to make a dent in the huge success of Ford’s large wagons and the others in that field. Another mostly-failed GM experiment.
But as far as I’m concerned, the combination of the trimmer A-Body with the three forward facing seats and remaining luggage area made them the best package of the genre. I really wanted my dad to get one in 1965 instead of the Coronet wagon, especially since we went to the Rockies every summer, but no such luck. It’s not like he ever listened to me anyway…
M/T also took a quick look and drive in the Olds Vista Wagon, so both are listed here in the stats, and there’s a short piece on it below:
Nothing really new or different, except that M/T did say that these two wagons were essentially identical except for styling details and power trains. I’ve never heard them say that about other GM (or Ford or Chrysler) product cars that were also “essentially identical”. It seemed to be a taboo back then.
My more detailed writeup of a Vista Wagon is here:
Curbside Classic: 1966 Oldsmobile Vista Cruiser – The Kiddie Wagon
What caught my attention was that these family haulers, perhaps approaching 5,000 lbs. fully loaded, rode on skinny 7.50×14 2 ply tires. Not to mention those puny 9 1/2 inch brake drums. And the Buick with that small V-6 must have had a 0-60 time over 20 seconds fully loaded. Scary. stuff.
Our B body Impala wagon weighed about the same, but with 8.25×14 tires and 11 inch brakes. My uncle had the Sportwagon. It was more stylish and luxurious, but narrower, so three across seating was a bit tighter.
I was raised in Ford’s wagons, and was a little jealous of the neighbors who had the Vista-Cruiser with the roof glass. I don’t think I ever got to ride in it—but M/T’s photo from the inside at last gives me a sense of what it was like (I never knew about the sun shades). Nice writeup!
My family bought a 1965 Buick Sportagon in 1967. When Mom got sick and could no longer drive it became my car. I was 18 at the time and longed for a Barracuda, or a Javelin, or a Corvair, but instead I was stuck with a wagon in a rather noxious shade of green. It was a two-seat wagon, but I put the second seat down and pretended I was driving a sports car. It was good, though, for hauling fraternity brothers to the local burger joint for midnight munchies.
One thing to add to what MT said: Their’s was a pre-release unit. After the article came out they noted in a follow-up issue that Buick ended up having the V-8 standard instead of the V-6. Apparently it made no sense to have an overtaxed ‘economy’ motor in such a heavy car.
My COAL on the Sportwagon is here:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-1965-buick-sportwagon-my-first-car/
That’s a good point about the V6, which I forgot, as well as the fact that these wagons did not appear until well into the 1964 MY. I will add that to the text.
Great write-up! That’s the Ionia Manufacturing Company in Ionia, MI. They built woody wagon components for a lot of manufacturers and later did final assembly on Shelby Mustangs.
Not much to add here other than to say that I loved the bubbletop roofs back then, and still do today. If I were to add any vintage car that I wanted to my garage, it’d be one of these.
In the early 1970s, when my family finally bit the bullet to buy a new “big car”, it was supposed to be an Olds Vista Cruiser and this thrilled me as a 10 year old to absolutely no end. Sadly, GM supplies were constrained that year and we wound up with a Chrysler. Not that I didn’t ultimately come to appreciate the Chrysler, but it was no Vista Cruiser.
The speedometer error on the F85 reached BMW levels. I would have been wondering why it was taking so long to get somewhere.
If I were a family man of means in 1964, a duo of an Electra and a Sport Wagon or a Ninety-Eight and a Vista Cruiser in the garage would have been appealing.
While not the first forward facing third row, this was the opposite of prevailing trends of the time, and would have been a leap forward for safety if the A bodies had retained forward facing seats when forward facing seats were introduced on the 1971 B bodies. In hindsight the decision to take the A bodies back to rear facing was a travesty, and the B bodies returning to rear facing in 1977 was appalling.
While raining on any parade of nostalgia for the rear facing seat, I soured on them when reality was thrust upon me. A few remaining rear facing 1996 B bodies were likely still on dealer lots when I took parenting classes pending the birth of my first child in 1997.
A film was shown on safely transporting children, and while the focus was on modern child safety seats (that haven’t changed a lot since that time), a segment was shown on the danger of the rear facing seat, including crash test footage featuring a box era B wagon. Turns out that a rear ending accident is catastrophic as the short crumple zone conspires with human bodies pitching toward the back of the vehicle causing greater injury and death.
Social trends such as the class I attended helped further the end of the station wagon in favor of minivans and SUVs with their forward facing third rows.
I have three Vista Cruiser memories: One was a family who lived on the street behind us who owned two nearly identical 66 Cutlass models, right down to the same color. One was a 4 door hardtop and the other was a Vista Cruiser. What stood out was how they backed both vehicles into their garage, so you saw two identical Oldsmobile faces staring at you every time the garage door was up.
In the early 70’s, some neighbors down the street had a silver-blue 65 model. It was getting some age on it by then, but it was a good car. I was mostly interested in it for the detail differences from our 64 Cutlass.
Finally, an aunt and uncle in suburban Philly had a 66 model. I remember being amazed by the rear seat passengers having our own sun visors, made necessary when the sun was at the right angle and came glaring into those two forward upper windows.
I remember the Olds version as being fairly popular in my midwestern area, but then Oldsmobiles sold well there. Buick, not so much. I wonder if that was why they brought back the 1-year-only 1970 B body wagon. And now I know why I saw so many more 65s than 64s.
CPJ wrote: “What caught my attention was that these family haulers,
perhaps approaching 5,000 lbs. fully loaded, rode on
skinny 7.50×14 2 ply tires. Not to mention those puny 9 1/2
inch brake drums. And the Buick with that small V-6 must
have had a 0-60 time over 20 seconds fully loaded. Scary.
stuff.”
I’m sure they served their purpose, with a ten percent safety margin. There’s an article on here about how GM allegedly nickeled and dimed customers on wheel & tire size. My concern is more with the public’s adherence to the tire pressures car mfgs. specified for their steeds.
I think the pendulum on wheel and tire profile size has swung waaaaay too far in the opposite direction, with rims large enough for trucks, or to hold the nose gear tires for a small commercial airliner!
90 percent of that trend has been driven by looks, and not load capacity or handling.
Where they wide enough to carry 4×8 sheets flat? That was important to some people like my dad.
Who was the first to factory-tint the third side window of a wagon/SUV? That would seem like a no brainer with the amount of heat gain and lack of rear A/C.
No, too narrow. Our Impala was able to carry plywood sheets flat with the tailgate down.
These are a good example of what a difference a name can make, with the evocatively named Vista-Cruiser outselling the almost generic Sportwagon by half again in the abbreviated first model year and through its run, with the name lasting into the Colonnade generation as a standard Fisher A-body wagon with a pop-up sunroof.
Moderately sure the Vista Cruiser (and therefore the Sport Wagon?) rear brakes were upgraded from the regular wagon/sedan/coupe brakes.
I don’t remember details very well. I’m thinking the shoes/drums were wider but not bigger in diameter. Every little bit helps.
My ’68 GM “A” body is getting the 9.5″ rear drums replaced by 11″ rear drum brakes from a mid-’70s A-body. An easy and effective upgrade that eliminates all the problems associated with a rear-axle disc-brake conversion.
I’ve wanted a ’68 Vista Cruiser for decades. Had a chance at one when I was in High School, and regretted passing it up ever since.
What a beauty .
I remember the Olds Vista Cruiser but not these .
I like the second magazine article picture, the suspension is fully unloaded and the driver is nearly drifting that 3,600# whale yet they say it handles well .
Some wider wheels and radial tires would surely make it better and safer to drive .
Disc brakes up front too .
-Nate
When I first started driving in the mid 1970’s a young mother across the street from my house had a 1968 Oldsmobile Vista Cruiser that was in really nice shape for a car approaching a decade of use. She was kind of cute in a Vicky Lawrence sort of way so I would wash and vacuum the Olds for her in exchange for a Pepsi and a chance to drive the car to “dry it off.” She might have been on to my scheme but never let on.
The car was fully loaded even with power windows and a power bench seat. The lower body had “wood grain” of course. It probably had the 400 cu. in. V8 which was a de-bored 455 that was also introduced that year. I never took a stopwatch to the Vista Cruiser but it would definitely get out its own way. Teenaged me was NOT embarrassed to be seen in that “Momobile”
Unique memories of a neighbor’s Vista Cruiser around ’67 to ’68. Saturday mornings were devoted to Catechism School and parents would share the ride responsibilities. Mr. Pettington had a basic tan colored Cruiser. Wow, the overhead windows were a sight to behold and so cool! I was a VW fanatic and thought these type of windows were only in the Microbuses.
It must have been a 2 seater up front because I recall a tunnel mounted shift, and a big motor. He loved driving this wagon! It was like pedal to the metal and he would shift the automatic manually. I remember the shifts very well… the precise clicking noise at shift and a bit of a head snap. It was a fun ride on Saturdays! It was no 6 cylinder!
My father in law like to tell a story (he still remembers this at 83!) about a move from Brooklyn to Sunrise Florida.
He at the time had a 1971 Cadillac Sedan and decided that a Vista Cruiser would be more appropriate. So he pulled in to the local Oldsmobile dealer, picked out a car that he liked, and processed to tell the salesman that he liked the wagon and would be trading in his Cadillac.
Dumbfounded, the salesman said he would need to get his manager involved. Turns out that the deal needed the dealer’s owner to get involved!!
When the sale was completed, Paul got new Vista Cruiser and some money back! The owner said it was the first time he’d ever seen positive equity to that extent!!
I remember both riding the roads round my hometown. More so, the “Olds” though.
My family had Buick wagons in the 60’s and 70’s. Our first was a Buick Special wagon. It was very basic with the V6, automatic but no power steering or brakes, no carpeting and just an AM radio. My dad replaced it with a 67, equipped the same way. In 69 my dad traded the 67 for a Special Deluxe wagon which had the 350, 2 speed auto, power steering, brakes, carpeting and an AM/FM sonomatic radio.
In 72 our family now with 5 kids moved to a 3 seat estate wagon with the 455 and our first car with A/C. Still no power windows, locks. Our final Buick wagon was a 78 Estate Wagon with the 403 Olds engine….great car
I used to “babysit” for neighbors down the street and one time they asked me to take their older (maybe 11 at the time?) boy to his baseball practice in their 3 yr old light green ’64 Vista Cruiser. It drove much more smoothly and quietly than our ’63 Country Sedan and I recall being very impressed with it. Several yrs after that our NY Uncle and Aunt bought a green-gold ’71 VIsta Cruiser, it was a great car and they kept it for almost 10 years,
Dad got a new Olds Vista Cruiser in 1969 just one week before bid Anti-War rally in Washington DC.
When he said he would be gone for 4 days I asked permission to drive the NEW CAR . With only 400 miles on the Olds 400 v8 dark green wagon that came with Crager mags and 350 hp, we set out from Michigan to DC to tell Nixon to PULL OUT of Viet Nam.. GREAT CAR and Great Trip !!!
On Monday morning we were back with 2800 miles on odometer to surprise my father.
He didn’t seem to care.
What a car ! My brother often took it to the drag strip and only lost one race.
From EGR High School to DC and back in 3 days.
In May of 68, Dad finally found the 65 Sportwagon of his dreams! He had searched dealerships and private party sales throughout the San Francisco Bay Area for a few months for a fully equipped 9 passenger Soprtwagon, and finally found one in light metallic blue with a matching vinyl interior at the Gil Ashcom Rambler used car lot in Berkeley. It had the Wildcat 355 engine, AC, power windows and seats, tilt wheel and the AM radio with rear speaker. The wagon replaced our beloved 61 Electra 225, and served us well for the next 5 years. We took several cross country trips and local excursions in the fancy blue wagon. Some 50 years later, I found its twin for sale on Hemmings and its in my garage today. The stretched A body platform is a joy to drive with solid handling (on radials), and the Wildcat 355 (300 ci) moves it along quite well. Below is a pic taken on one of our cross country road trips to visit our family in Alabama.