Pontiac’s 1964 GTO rocked the automotive world. Its formula elevated the intermediate car into an all-round performance car, one that not only scorched the pavement in a straight line but set new handling standards. It was an instant hit and everyone else wanted in on the action too, including the other GM divisions. Buick’s Skylark Gran Sport arrived one year later with plenty of accelerative mojo thanks to its husky 325 hp “nailhead” 401 Wildcat V8. But there’s more to a genuine performance car than acceleration and exhilaration. Car Life had a lot of good things to say about the Gran Sport, especially its acceleration, but ultimately it concluded that it was neither a “sports car” or even a genuine “performance car”.
Although the GS was certainly a significant improvement over the vanilla Skylark, after driving it some 2000 miles CL wondered if Buick had gone far enough, especially in comparison to the GTO and the Dodge 426-S. That’s not to say the GS wasn’t a compelling package and a major improvement over the Skylark, but both the GTO and the Plymouth had set very high standards for the times. Not surprisingly, Buick’s GM called the GS “a completely engineered performance car…designed to appeal to sports car enthusiasts.” Umm, not.
The problem was that the GS simply didn’t stop as well as it accelerated and didn’t handle and steer as well as it cruised. CL’s standards for “performance” applied to all aspects of a car’s abilities, even down to its heater’s performance. Car Life was something of an outlier back then, as they applied standards more akin to what one might find in Germany’s Auto, Motor und Sport.
As to its acceleration, the results were “impressive” despite its “2.5-speed automatic” (Buick ST-300 2-speed with switch-pitch stator). 0-60 came in 7.4 seconds and the 1/4 mile in 15.3 sec. @88 mph. But “impressive” is still slower than the two standard setters mentioned previously: CL’s 4-speed GTO yielded a 6.6 second 0-60 time and a 1/4 mile in 14.3 @99mph, and the Plymouth 426-S (wedge) was also quicker with a 0-60 time of 6.8 sec. and a 1/4 mile in 15.2 @95.5 mph. Both of these did have engines with higher rated hp (GTO: 348; Plymouth: 365), so the gap is pretty understandable. Nevertheless, the GS was clearly a notch below the leaders of the pack in those metrics despite the good rating by CL.
But the GS flunked the braking test. Despite bigger front wheel brake cylinders and a harder brake lining, the small 9.5″ front drums were simply overwhelmed. At least the GTO offered metallic linings for those demanding drivers who were willing to put up with their high pedal pressure. As CL put it, about the GTO’s brakes: “the GTO’s performance is total too.”
The little “Chevy II-sized drums” were simply overloaded by the 4300lbs test weight (3700 curb weight), and CL pointed out that Olds and Pontiac offered optional finned and metallic-lined brakes. A bit odd, given Buick’s rep for better-than-average drum brakes on its big cars.
Handling was of course improved over the rather flaccid Skylark: the GS used a stiffer convertible frame and springs, shocks and bushings were all firmed up. The problem was the usual bugaboo: too much weight on the front end, as in a whopping 58.3% of the total. The nailhead V8 was hardly a lightweight; combined with the automatic, power steering, power brakes and air conditioning it all added up to some 500lbs(!) more on the front wheels compared to a basic V6 Skylark. This was the Achille’s heel of this formula. Traction was severely compromised, especially on wet pavement, and cornering, maximum speed was simply limited by the adhesive limits of the rear tires, which of course is limited proportionally to the amount of weight on them. The result was skids, slides and spins. CL points out that a few sandbags in the trunk would undoubtedly help.
The more pedestrian “performance” aspects of the GS, things like parking, heater, a/c and others, they all worked well. It was these functions that GM tended to nail down better than average. Priorities.
As to the ST-300 automatic, it was of course somewhat limited by its “2.5 speeds“, but given the 401 cubic inch engine’s more than ample 445 lb.ft. of torque, the two complemented each other well enough. CL suggests that GM’s “3.5 speed” automatic (THM-400 with switch pitch stator) would enhance acceleration, but “it isn’t absolutely needed.” Nevertheless it clearly wasn’t up the standard’s that Chrysler’s TorqueFlite had set, especially in its performance cars.
CL sums it up by stating the obvious, that the GS package is more desirable than not. But then they point out something decidedly not so obvious (although it is of course), that a V6 equipped Skylark would provide the ideal chassis balance for handling, brakes, steering and fuel economy. Now if only they and the other divisions had offered high performance versions of their sixes. Oh wait; one of them did. And that didn’t go over all that well. Americans were seemingly quite ok with big heavy V8s up front — it made it easier to melt the rear rubber when trying to impress someone.
Related CC reading:
Vintage Car Life Road Test: 1964 Pontiac GTO – “Honest In Performance”?
Vintage Road & Track Review: 1966 Pontiac Sprint – Nice Engine; Wrong Car
A guy I worked with around 1980 had one of these. He was a real Buick fan, with a first gen Riveria that packed a dual quad 425. He ended up with the GS in settlement of a debt, and even though he like Buicks he didn’t want to keep it. He messed around with it for a bit and even swapped in the 425 for a while while the Riv got freshened up.
Once the 401 went back in he tried for a long time to sell it with little interest at 2500 bucks. It was red with a white interior, 4 speed, and in quite nice shape. I couldn’t swing it, and wasnt in love with the car anyway, so I passed. Last time I saw it was on a consignment lot, and I’ve often wondered where it ended up.
I do recall it was decently fast, hard to “hook up” and the brakes weren’t great but you could say the same for any muscle car of the period, as anyone who’s driven one knows.
Robby, the Buick guy, grumbled about that car for years afterward. I guess the sale proceeds didn’t cover the debt. If only he had waited a decade or 2!
My uncle had a 1965 Skylark Grand Sport ragtop he sold a couple years ago. Same engine/trans as the test car. Condition wise it was a really nice survivor. Original floors, quarters, rockers, etc always garaged, never taken apart, had one repaint. The build quality was astounding, no squeaks, rattles, everything felt tight, the doors slammed with authority. The original interior was also IMMACULATE, keep in mind this was 53 year old car when I rode in it a few years ago.
GM fell hard in the 70s, those cars felt loose, squeaked and rattled coming off the assembly line.
What’s a “nailhead” engine ?
The Buick 401 V8 of the time required the use of small valves, which, when removed from the engine looked like “nails”. Hence nailhead.
It’s a nickname for these engines because they have really small valves
‘Chevy Ii sized drums’ in a heavy weight brute with a 120 mph top speed. I wonder if they would begin to fade out, say by 80 or so in just one instance of running out of road sooner than one thought while burying the speedo or even having not paid attention to descent speed on long Western mountain grades.
9 inch unboosted drums on a 1200kg car towing a trailer with a cubic metre of bluegum on board down steep gravel hills you hit the brakes once to brush of speed and downshift the trans, then hope nothing goes wrong, trailer brakes would have helped but none fitted, and people wonder why I sold that car instead of importing it, On its best day without a trailer it couldnt catch that Buick even down a hill, Ive had them fade away on a different 60s GM brand, you get one chance that will work and a maybe.YMMV.
That pretty much sums up how I assessed these mid-Sixties GS’s and Cutlasses at the time – they were a peg down performance-wise on their A-body GTO and Chevelle cousins. That changed somewhat with the 68/69 Hurst-Olds Cutlass and the 70 GS 455 Stage 1.
I race a 65 GS in the Pure Stock race series, with a little work on traction and gearing the car regularly runs 13.8’s- 14.2’s, and is competive with just about anything from the era, any 440’s, RAIII’s Hurst Old’s are fair game. But what that doesnt tell you is how wonderful the car is to drive. Interior trim details are Cadillac level, and the Nailhead is a sweetheart of a motor: bulletproof, tractable, torquey and intoxicatingly smooth. The ST300 2 speed isnt the penalty they’d have you believe and seems to have zero parasitic loss. It’s not the fastest car in the field, but it is perhaps the most rewarding. The criticisms in the article are all valid, but carry less weight in real life. Everytime I drive the car I have to consider if it’s my absolute favorite.
Post pics please, looks beautiful!
What a difference a year makes, to Pontiac’s advantage in sales and popularity, by being first with the GTO.
In that era had the Buick been first with the GS, things might have been totally different.
It was more than just being the first. The GTO’s visual package was much more impactful than the GS, which looked too much like a Skylark with its whitewall tires and wheel covers and such. And Pontiac simply was head and shoulders above anyone else in terms of its marketing, advertising and positioning. Never mind that the GTO was a better all-round package, faster and with more attention paid on its handling and such. This was the huge advantage Pontiac enjoyed because of JZD and Wangers.
Pontiac was already a hot brand with younger buyers; Buick not.
^ Exactly this Paul. Pontiac was something really special in the 1960s. Even on the high end the Bonneville was a more compelling package than an Electra 225 or Olds 98. There might have been faster Chevies if you checked the right option boxes but the GTO(and Tempest) were so much nicer than a basic Chevy Nova or Chevelle
Oh! What a beauty!
One of the intersting items on the BOP intermediates, the HD, fully syncro 3 speed manual was a Ford transmission. Chevrolet used a Saginaw in the Chevelle.
OMG this article brings back memories. When Buick released the Skylark Gran Sport I was really smitten with it, I really liked the Skylark’s styling and then I read the Car Life road test and came away feeling totally disillusioned. Of course I was 18 and naive.
You scared me at single wheel cylinder front brakes, these things go great, first rule of hotrodding. IF it goes it must STOP. Disc front brakes were a standard factory fitment on slower British cars by this time, I have one,
Other than the brakes I like it but Buick was the bankers hot rod, they didnt take 90 degree turns at 60mph, so the handling was probably adequate for the intended punter, and less likely to hammer the brakes on a mountain pass,
I mean how often have YOU explored the limits of your car? Or having found them use them.
The bigger concern was a single circuit master cylinder. I replaced mine with adual circuit unit from a later model year. the drum brakes actually work fine if you use your head, they haul me down from 100 mph long before the gravel trap. Drum brakes are just fine for any kind of panic stop. It’s the 2nd panic stop where you run into trouble, and thats generally on the driver.
If memory serves, for at least one model year, they dropped the Skylark designation and just called it Gran Sport, while shortening the other one to Riviera GS to avoid confusion. I’m sure that attracted legions of extra buyers.
In the mid 70″s My 65 GS had a 4 speed, dual holleys
It ran 14.00 all day long…
I my senior year of HS, the m21 gave up, so I put a Ford “Top Load” 4speed in it…
Buick was legendary for having excellent drum brakes (finned aluminum fronts) on the large cars….and GM in general was slow to adopt front discs (not counting the Corvette). It’s a shame Buick skimped on the Sylark/GS brakes.
Still, these were classy, well-trimmed muscle cars!
I dont know if any domestic manufacturer was quicker to market with widespread standard discs, but at least GM tried different things with drums. in 68-70, Buick had aluminum front drums on certain A-body cars (generally GS’s ). My 65 has a set of those on the front, and also a set on early 80’s G-Body aluminum rear drums on the rear. On my car, this wasnt done so much for heat dissapation or brake fade I was shooting for reduction of weight and rotating mass.
I asked on the excellent V8Buick forum if the GS400 alloy brake drums made much difference.
The consensus was yes, a worthwhile up grade.
A moot point for me as I’d gone for a disc upgrade.
A nice car and as Rhett says, it’s a marvelous driver and no slouch when it comes to speed either .
“I mean how often have YOU explored the limits of your car?” as it turns, on a pretty regular basis and I live Way Out West where the hills and canyons become killers with a car like this because the brakes never get a chance to cool off .
My son’s survivor 1967 GS was a great driver and speedy, quick more than actually fast, I’m sure he had some white knuckle moments as he let it out late at night and learned it’s limits .
-Nate
I think my biggest takeaway from this article is right in the headline. Buick’s GTO fighter…. So in 1965 GM’s biggest competition was…. GM. Got it. Almost hard to imagine in a modern perspective.
In Powell River B.C.Canada there was a black64 or 65 Skylark and ir was beautiful. It had the pine tree air freshner and purple sex lights but the kicker was the 45 rpm record player with the spring loaded arm and duals with thrush mufflers. Oh yeah, the obligatory vacumn gauge.
I had a 1966 Plymouth Belvedere II Convertible with the 383, Automatic and 10 inch drum brakes. It was easy enough to overdrive those. The Skylark GS with 9 inch drums brakes must have been on scary ride. Kind of a shame because I thought they were pretty cars.
I had a ‘67 Gran Sport, it was a nice enough car but not the “Goat” killer my ‘65 442 was. The Buick was a more like a more civilized version.