This afternoon I stopped to get a pizza and stumbled upon this late-model Skylark. This generation of Skylark was introduced for the 1992 model year and it sported…controversial styling, shall we say?
Note: Updated with more info and pictures.
The ’92 Skylarks (above) had a very beak-like prow, and a continuous loop of trim that ran above the rear wheel wells. It was clearly trying to look like the 1990 Buick Bolero concept car, but it was one of those love it or hate it designs, much like this morning’s Seville duel. I have to admit I kind of like these, especially the GS.
Skylarks were available as a sedan or coupe in Custom, Limited and GS versions. The GS had a standard 160 hp 3300 V6, while the Custom and Limited made do with the 2.3L Quad OHC engine with 120 hp.
The instrument panel was just as unique as the exterior.
Buick finally softened the styling for 1996, and the resulting car was much more palatable. It didn’t last though and the Skylark was discontinued after ’98. I personally like the face-lifted version, but I never saw many of them, even when they were new. This one looks to be in good shape, and the owner obviously takes care of it, as the car was in the ‘back 40’ of the parking lot. Photos taken and pizza retrieved, I went on my way.
Okay, the name of this blog is Curbside Classics… exactly WHAT makes car built in 1997 a classic?
According to Wikipedia: “A classic car is an older car; the exact meaning is variable. The Classic Car Club of America maintains that a car must be between 20 and 40 years old to be a classic, while cars over 45 years fall into the Antique Class… Legally, most states have time-based rules for the definition of “classic” for purposes such as antique vehicle registration; for example, Most states define it as “A motor vehicle, but not a reproduction thereof, manufactured at least 20 years prior to the current year…”
Umm, so what?
I always love the 20 year argument. A 93 Mustang GT isn’t a classic but a 92 Mustang GT just became one..
It’s an interesting older car that you don’t see every day. Seems classic enough to me…
Jeff, that’s exactly why I’ve gotten sucked into this site. Typically cars get coverage when they’re new… and then 20+ years later, through rose-tinted glasses. And that’s if they’re remembered at all (since the cars that were the most significant in their day, volume-wise, are rarely the ones in car shows and classic mags)!
CC fills a unique niche in covering cars that are just old and common enough to have memories of and personal experience with, but which are also close to extinction as daily drivers.
The 20 year distinction may have come about because classic car insurers require a car to be at least 20 years old for them to cover, though I’ve heard of some that will cover cars only 15 years old.
We most certainly don’t follow the CCCA guidelines for CC status here. In fact ,we don’t have any hard and fast guidelines. We’ve even done brand new cars, technology, trains, trucks, buses, airplanes, houses, etc…
This is a blog by, about and for those with an interest in cars (and other vehicles), with the primary focus being on non-new cars and older ones. I’ve specifically gauged our readers’ interest in more recent cars, and they have responded positively. The issue is this: where else could one discuss a 1997 Skylark? Not at the CCCA site, or most other automotive web sites.
It might be easier to define CC by what we don’t (generally) do: automotive news, politics related to that, new car reviews, as well as the whole world of restoration, modification and other enthusiast undertakings. We’re car guys who like to talk about cars, mostly older.
The beauty of a blog is that you’re free to skip those articles that don’t interest you, since we do have a strict policy of not refunding subscriptions 🙂
One of the attractions of this site for me is the sheer variety of cars that get featured of all eras Ill never see one of these recent Buicks in the wild here so for me its interesting for that alone.
Yup same here. Although we have such a variety here in NZ, you’re quite right Bryce, it’s fascinating to read about cars I may never see.
Hear, hear! I, for one, would love to see more articles on those market failures, those cars that sold so poorly that you almost never see one parked on the street. Those cars that I have to stop for a moment and think about what I’m seeing when I’m still too far away to read the nameplate on the hood or trunk. And the vast majority of them are NOT classics. Actually, they’re probably more the cars we laughed at, sneered at, and (personally) never considered buying when they were new or late model used.
A suggestion: I, for one, would LOVE to see an extensive article on the Renaults that came to America before the Le Car, Alliance and Encore. You know, the Dauphine, the 8, 12, 15,16, 17, etc. Most people nowadays don’t even remember that Renault imported cars over here. And most people would be far from considering them classics.
Gotta love a car with only 3-bolt hubs!
I actually spotted a LeCar 4-door at a repair shop a couple months ago. I always meant to get photos, I kept putting it off and then it disappeared. I’d NEVER seen a four-door version.
Thomas–I noticed your facebook inquiry, but somehow have been blocked from responding. I’m a retired Lutheran Pastor, 82 years old, living in Kansas City. I was born and raised in Rock Island, graduated from Rocky High, attended Augustana College and the University of Illinois (Chambana). My Dad was Arfthur, my uncles Walter, Bill and Otto. I’d appreciatre hearing from you directly. Looking forward!!
Exactly. This car is an aging oddball, so I’m glad to see it here. It will never be a “classic” in the sense of being investment-grade, but (please forgive the caps, but I really mean this): EVERY CAR DESERVES TO BE REMEMBERED.
I agree Paul! I love this site because of the variety and type of content posted.
Why is everyone so grumpy today? This is all for fun and interesting discussions with our peers- maybe slamming cars, but not each other or the blog.
Why indeed? Variety is the spice of life. I personally do not care what the age of the car is. I always enjoy the interesting writeups. And in many cases it is helpful to see later cars to see how design and engineering compromises of older cars evolved.
Well if it matters the original design dates fom 1992, so its already 21 years old, wow, I need to let that sink in, I remember sitting in this generation of Skylark at the Miami Beach Auto Show when they were brand new.
My sister’s first car was a 1995 Buick Skylark, complete with the controversial design. My grandmother, though unable to drive, bought it brand new and my sister got it when it was only 2 years old. My grandmother never once drove the car. The salesman, a family friend, would joke (until his untimely death) that my grandmother was the only person to whom he ever sold a car that never set foot in the showroom. She went out to the lot, picked what she wanted, but with her health had to quickly get home and back to her oxygen machine. But I digress…
Even as a young lad at the age of 8, I still recall being there with her and my mother, and sitting in a Buick Century, but she wanted the Skylark. It cost roughly $16,000 and was probably mid-level. It was white with a tan interior and had power steering, windows, and door locks; anti-lock brakes, and dynaride. For a car that size, the dynaride was amazing. My sister and I went to a private school 30 miles away, and even though the rolling hills of Pittsylvania and Henry County, Virginia, that car rode smoother than anything else I’ve ever ridden in.
Even now, some 12 years after my sister traded in the Skylark, she still says she misses it. I, personally, miss the 1982 Regal Station Wagon she had before it. But her health was failing, and as I’ve grown older I wonder if she truly believed she’d ever drive again. Though she always promised me she’d get well enough to take me out somewhere, it was normally my mother who drove the Skylark until Grandma died. Sometimes, I think she picked the least “old lady” looking car, knowing that my sister would inherit it. But, this is the same woman who drove and loved two Renaults in the 1960s and 1970s, so one never knows….
The front face styling was changed for the 1996 model year, not ’97.
Oops! I’ll update the year, thanks.
Wow! I never knew Buick took the time to cut the beak off of these. It is better but still a bit clumsy looking.
This is an interesting car to appear here today, because the original 1992 Skylark was the last car whose design was led by Wayne Kady, who also did the 1980 Seville. Many of his designs are rather polarizing. I’m planning a retrospective of all his designs.
Kady was also responsible for the 1971 Eldo too right?
Yes, unfortunately, IMHO.
I dunno what your talking about, I love 72 Eldorados. True the 67-68 are the best looking ones ever, but the 72’s something about them that I love.
Yes, I definitely think we need an overview of Kady’s work. Regarding the ’92 Skylark, it isn’t a timeless masterpiece like a ’61 Continental or a ’63 Riviera, but I was glad to see it, because at least it made SOME kind of a design statement. I’m not surprised that the ’95 facelift didn’t sell; it turned the car into a generic blob offering the customer no reason to buy it instead of a Chevy.
The 98’s were fleet only and four doors, as with the same year Acheivas. Buick didn’t get a version of the Alero, though. Many used fleet Skylarks did end up in Buick dealers’ used car lots for the elders who still wanted one.
But, OTOH, I do agree with Buick’s current direction of not being ‘Chevys with chrome’. One Buick dealer complained to Automotive News about the newer luxury products and whined ‘What will seniors buy?’ Well, currently Baby Boomers are now 65 and don’t want a cush-mobile.
I always thought of the 95 Skylark as an update on the ugliest car of all time, the Citroen Ami 6.
My father’s last car was a ’92 or ’93 Skylark. As usual, he didn’t ask my advice, but it gave him good service. It was finally taken away from him last year, after one too many close calls.
My grandmother owned one of the pre-facelifted versions a four door in a slightly metalic shade of blue with a matching blue interior and the 3.1 V6. She traded in an old Ford Tempo 4cyl in the robins egg blue and light blue interior. Going to the Buick was like a rocket ship in comparison power wise and she loved the Dynaride. IIRC the Buick was the last car she ever got speeding tickets in. Her health took a slight down turn after that and she compensated by buying a LOADED Pontiac Aztek for easier slidding into the seat. She also rarely leaves town limits and drives much slower. I think more than a few cops were shocked to pull over a woman who looked like Sophia Petrillo exceeding the speed limit.
As God is my witness, I don’t ever recall having seen a ’96-98 version, just the earlier ones. I’m kinda partial to the pre-facelifted versions (well, not enough to consider buying one, but whatever). Like the plumpness of it. It would seem like a reasonable base for a custom rod, along the lines of, say, a ’50 Ford.
While I’m rambling, I’m bemused that in 13 posts, at least three mention Buick drivers who’ve had the keys taken away because of age. Kinda says it all, demographic-wise. Happened to my Dad, too, after he passed out at the wheel on the Pennsylvania Turnpike and totaled out his pristine ’76 Regal, miraculously without serious injury to himself or another motorist.
Yep, I acquired an admiration for Buicks from my late father – in the final ten years of his life, he dropped his lifelong loyalty for Chevrolet (he was an ex-dealer) and replaced it with a series of Buick Century’s. Which was probably the best boring car ever made.
Welcome to Buick’s biggest challenge: Convincing the marketplace that it’s desirable to own a Buick before your 65th birthday.
> Welcome to Buick’s biggest challenge: Convincing the marketplace that it’s desirable to own a Buick before your 65th birthday.
But why? If Buick keeps older buyers cornered, changing as a new generation defines the 65+ age group, what is the problem? Younger (or young-at-heart) buyers have Chevrolet and Cadillac. There should be a line of conservatively designed, spacious, silent, comfortable, powerful and safe cars at a somewhat higher price point. This market keeps getting neglected by GM, while Toyota makes a killing here with the Camry. As Chevrolet goes after Corolla with the Cruze, a large, inoffensive, trouble-free car with broad appeal can take the fight to the Camry, and what better nameplate than the conservative Buick? A brand targeted to older, more mature buyers also cross-targets professions like doctors, attorneys, and bankers, where the appearance of age and wealth is beneficial but a youthful, risk-taking image counter-productive.
You do realize that the Lexus ES350 combines all the traditional Buick positives without all of the negatives (senior citizen stigma – it is not embarrassing for a 40 year old to drive an ES350, unlike a Buick) That’s why it sells so well and that’s why Buick is adrift in the US market. If it was not for China, Buick probably would have met the fate of Oldsmobile and Pontiac.
Most comfortable, upper-middle income people in their 60s are not stupid. They know that the ES350 or the Avalon, or even the Camry have better reputations, better resale value, and will not get them kidded about being geezers. Buick sold a lot of cars in the 1990s through momentum – people who had always driven (or wanted to drive) Buicks. That generation has largely aged out of the new car market, and Buick never really made its case with the next generation.
When I was about 19 or so, I met an old character in Minneapolis who was the archetype of the “Buick man”. His first car had been a 1908 Buick, and he had never owned anything but a Buick since, and had owned quite a few of them too. This was in the mid-50’s and his current ride was a 1955 Century 4-door sedan. Now I am almost as old as that guy was, and I think it is possible that meeting him was one of the incentives for my having had as many cars, and as many different makes and types of cars, as I’ve had. Yet when it comes to my main driver, I’m on my sixth Honda Accord. Go figure.
Interesting observation that got me thinking. I just counted up that I am on my 28th vehicle. Eleven separate brands from seven different manufacturers. I guess that I have been spreading things around pretty evenly. There was even one Buick in there. And wasn’t even 40 when I owned it! 🙂
JPC: The people who are buying LaCrosse in droves, whether in their 60s or not, would not agree with you. Its sales doubled after the introduction of the 2010 model. All Buick has to do is put out good cars, and people will buy ’em. The brand is not dead. Better reputation and better resale value will come, slowly but surely, if they *continue* making good cars. That’s all there is to it.
How many of those Lacrosse sales were to rental fleets? I see those things in the Enterprise Rent-A-Car lots quite often, or driving around with the telltale bar code in one of the rear windows.
There comes that red herring again. So what if rental fleets are buying them? Is a rental car proof of low cost of ownership and ruggedness or a stigma?
Anyway, getting that prejudice aside, Buick RETAIL sales were definitely up in 2011, showing CYTD retail 24.1% gain over 2010 (till September), with total gain 22.9%. That means retail sales actually increased *more* than fleet sales, if that means anything. Source: http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2011/Oct/gmsales, courtesy Google. Sheesh.
FWIW in my personal observations, i have noticed that just every driver of the new LaCrosse in my area is not all that old, and are well off and well-to-do. So obviously Buick must be doing something right these days.
Oh, and as some of you may recall, I have sitting in my garage a rather pristine 1995 LeSabre Limited. It’s a great car and everything about it exudes class and quality. Buick quality as far as I am concerned, especially with the larger models, is every bit as good as the legend claims. In other words, it’s a heck of a car!
You do realize that the next generation ES was called the “Buick LaCrosse fighter” by a Lexus marketing exec, Lexus is benchmarking the ES against a Buick….
The Buick LaCrosse has made a significant impact in the marketplace, and it has been a very good car for Buick.
> …next generation ES was called the “Buick LaCrosse fighter” by a Lexus marketing exec…
If he did, I never read or heard about it. Rather the other way round. LaC is a good car nevertheless.
You kinda described right were Buick is now, The Regal, LaCrosse and Enclave have all been solid sellers for Buick.
Yeah, I know. I’m just saying that an aura of maturity and understated wealth about a brand is not necessarily a `senior-citizen stigma’, or a bad thing, as long as the people buying it are wealthy, successful people, seniors or not. This is Toyota’s home ground, and only a few years before there is an alleged `senior-citizen stigma’ around Lexus as well (the cries of boring design have engulfed Acura, and are around Lexus already). But only if Buick makes good cars, that are otherwise comparable and in some ways superior to the competition.
Funny you mention the Camry, I have an ’01 that I refer to as my Japanese Buick. I hate driving it – decent looking car but has a totally vanilla driving experience that is hard for me to take – but I just can’t part with it as it is as reliable as the day is long.
Which brings me back to Buick – I think the current crop are decent looking, I haven’t driven one lately but I’m thinking that they retain a vanilla Buicky feel. So all they need to do is make them reliable (hopefully the new GM has changed its ways) and a once proud reputation will follow.
This is a *huge* market, and the US domestics are grossly under-represented here. GM should do well to make reliable Buicks if it wants to wrest it from Lexus/Acura. Free Cadillac to deal with the Germans.
But the main thing is to keep making good cars. That’s all there is to it, really.
The toned down styling of this version always seemed like a big improvement to me. I thought the previous version looked like it was wearing a bed ruffle.
I was never a big fan of this generation of Skylark, though the interior, odd as it appeared, was quite comfy. I think the previous Skylark was a much better looking car, especially with that full width light bar on the back end.
Of course, all Skylarks hold a special place in my heart, my first car was an ’85 Skylark that my parents bought new (their first new car) and gave to me several years later.
Like you, I liked the early version of this iteration of the Skylark. Not the cheaper ones, though, the GS models really look good to me.
It’s much like the current Camrys styling, the lower trim lines look like poverty times 100, but the higher trim level models look great.
My parents had the X body FWD version of this car and it wasn’t bad, but wasn’t great either and I remember seeing this version shown here around. Back in the early 90’s when we still lived in West Tacoma, neighbors who lived in the house across the alley from us had one. They were an older couple and it may have been one of their last cars, it was the earlier, I think perhaps a 92 or so beak Skylark. I don’t remember seeing the revised grilled versions and remember hearing that Buick finally killed off the Skylark a couple of years later.
I’ve never liked these as like so many cars that GM did back then, such as the Lumina and our next door neighbors bought a light blue one (early version) and to me, they represented mediocre and ordinary 4 door sedans. I just never cared for cars like them, ever.
My grandma had a silver on gray 92 Skylark that she bought from my aunt and uncle on the other side of my family when they found out they were having twins. That was around 1993, after my grandpa had passed away. We got rid of the early 90s Mercury Topaz, which I recall being rather well equipped for that time, and the 79 Catalina. My grandma drove that car until December 2006 when it finally wasn’t worth enough to fix, even with only 88,000 miles on it. She then upgraded to her 2005 Impala LS. What a huge change for her! And then after she died I got the Impala.
Kind of glad she still didn’t have the Skylark…
What blew my mind on these was that the early versions with the beak had electronic suspension damping of some sort on the Gran Sport versions. And that wild-assed dash on the early ones…
See?
i always thought it was funny that they sort of went back to the same steering wheel design that Buick had in he late 70’s early 80’s with that wheel.
The dash was like big “wave” that swept from one side to the other and the driver side a/c vent was kinda connected to the door, where the window switches were, next to the optional ride control.
Ooohhh, an 80’s vintage Regal, me likey!!! 🙂
Yes, I’m serious.
Me too
I think they are really good looking cars, the 1978-80 ones look a littlle too short for their styling, but when they added a little length to them with the 1981 aero restyle, they really hit the nail on the head.
Me three. LOVE the ’81 – ’83 Regals, especially the Limiteds. The ’84 & newer ones lost the atttractive “silver square” instrument clusters but still looked classy on the outside. Here’s my poor ’81 Limited 🙁
And yet a three-speed automatic and rear drum brakes. I always wondered about that.
It appears from the postings so far that nobody under the age of 70 ever bought one of these new. Like a lot of others here, I had not thought of these in years. Actually, I kind of preferred the “mini-98” look of the Under-Achieva.
I’m probably one of the few that likes the original front end better than the refresh. What I don’t like about the design as a whole (this applies to both versions) is how the lower trim kicks up at the back more than the beltline does (really noticeable in the second picture). That and the fact that the sharpness of the front is mismatched with the roundness of the rest of the car makes it look like it’s two different cars. IMO, it would have looked better if they had sharpened up & straightened out the rest of the car rather than soften the front end during the refresh. I’m no fan of the great jellybean epoch.
What I remember are the colors in which these were available, particularly when first introduced. Buick offered brilliant greens and reds, and the automotive press harked a swing toward the color palettes of the 1950s (which, alas, never materialized).
Count me as one who prefers the original, pre-facelift design…once the beak was trimmed, there was little to differentiate it from its Olds Achieva sibling.
The seafoam-green over grey with white/red striping sticks in my mind as the most 1990s colour scheme ever conceived.
YES! And not too long afterward it was Seafoam green with big sploshes of white or rust where the paint decided not to stick anymore.
Poor thing looks like it’s about to burst out crying!
My dad bought one of his girlfriends a red red ’92ish 4-door with charcoal interior. It was a very nice car & she kept it for years with nothing but regular maintenance required. She was in her mid-forties and she often remarked about how much she liked it. The only thing she didn’t like was the $80 the dealer wanted for a replacement plastic wheelcover. She ended up getting Wal-Mart generichromes instead.
I was surprised how well the bright red paint held up & how torquey the 3300 V6 engine was: it felt like a 3800 the times I drove it. The beak & funky taillights were my favorite features. The dash was interesting as you could tell Buick actually ‘styled’ it but I didn’t find it that attractive.
With the softening of the exterior styling, was there a corresponding softening of the dashboard? This wasn’t a car that grabbed my attention – a Corsica with lipstick is still a pig – so I don’t know. I thought all the lines on these cars looked awkward and lumpy compared with the 86-91 N Car predecessors which seemed better proportioned. Even the Corsica had better styling. I thought the previous Skylark was clearly aimed at people who really wanted a Park Avenue Cushmobile but couldn’t afford/didn’t need one. Previous skylark was really nicely trimmed on the inside. This one was aimed at . . . who?
Paul thanks for bringing back forgotten cars from the past, “classic” or not. It’s YOUR website so YOU get to write about whatever you want! Love it!
And since we’ve had such a long series of GM’s Deadly Sins, I’d like to nominate the ’90’s Mazda 626 as the car whose transmission and quality failures killed Mazda’s ambitions to be a mainstream manufacturer.
There was indeed–pic of the softened dashboard below. While Mazda certainly suffered an identity crisis in the ’80s and ’90s, I reckon they’re swinging back towards the big leagues today, thanks mostly to the Mazda3–at least in Japan, Europe, and Australia. The 3 was close to achieving much the same same status in the States when I left a few years back, and I understand it’s much the same today.
The Achieva also shared this dash. It does the job but it’s no where as interesting as the original Achieva dash with it’s large round gauges set into separate pods, that was pretty neat looking I thought.
I have to admit that I wasn’t fully aware of the ’90s 626 having such issues. Ironic, because the eighties’ 626 was considered a paragon of Japanese reliability. In fact, 626s ranked right at the top (best) of Germany’s ADAC break-down rankings for a number of years, and the 626 had a bit of a boomlet there for that reason.
There was nothing wrong with the 626 – as long as you bought the manual transmission. Mazda automatics of the late 80s and through much of the 90s were terrible. CR used to give the 626 all reds and whites, except the automatic, which got a black.
As the market shifted to more automatics in that segment, it did not to much for Mazda’s reputation. The fact that the 1997-2001 model was actually a worse car overall than the 93-97 model was truly befuddling to the automotive press. Mazda sucked the fun out of the car, it ended up a rental special, which meant mostly auto transmissions of dubious quality.
I always thought the styling odd on these cars but not out of the ordinary for Buick and the Skylark. The early ’50s Skylarks IMO looked whacky as did the ’68 – ’69s.
The hotwife and I had a ’92 Achieva back in the day. Got it new. Had the Quad 4 which was quite powerful in such a small car. Lower radiator hose blew one day and she drove it about 25 miles sew that was the end of that.
I’m with you on the 68-69 Skylarks, that side sweep down to the rear never agreed with me.
Gah! I hated the design of these. In 1992 I was driving a green 4 door AMC Concord and I could feel smugly good about myself. “Times are tough, but at least I’m not driving one of THOSE”
The softened version is so generic GM that I can’t recall ever having seen one, but I must have.
I’m wondering if these were never sold in Canada. I don’t recall ever seeing one.
I kinda liked the pre-facelift ones in a weird and wacky way. I don’t think I’d want own one but they do add a bit of automotive diversity.
They were sold in Canada.
Well, love it or hate it, these at least were not just Chevys with Buick badges, they looked “Buick” as the 60’s Skylarks did.
I’m wondering if the German 626 didn’t have as many issues because the majority of German cars are manual transmission whereas the majority of American cars are automatics, and that was (anecdotally) a weak point in the 626s. Everyone I knew that had one had the transmission fail early and expensively, along with other expensive things . . . again, anecdotal.
The auto transmission used in the last-gen 626 (before it was replaced with Mazda6) was also used in the Ford Contour, Mercury Mystique, and the Mercury Cougar (sport compact generation). I know this because I had an auto 1999 Mercury Cougar in which the transmission completely failed at 65k miles. Unreal.
Hey, a car I sold new is now a Curbside Classic. I got into selling Buick right as these were going out the door, so around 1997 or so, our Buick selection consisted of a ton of mid line equipped LeSabres, Centurys and Regals, which made up the bulck of our Buick business, about 10 big Park Avenues, about 4 or 5 Rivieras, and a row of about 6 97 Skylarks sitting at the back of the lot, the oddest of the 2 were a black Grand Sport coupe, which must be super rare today and a loaded up Limited Skylark coupe, yeah these were available in both coupe and sedan with full Custom, Limited and GS versions for all of them.
By late 98, with 1999 cars already starting to arrive, we finally unloaded the last Skylark, the loaded Limited coupe(it had a column shift even!) we sold it to, wait for it, wait for it……and old lady, no kidding. I sold it to her, I saw her pull into the lot in here circa 1987 N-body Skylark coupe and I said to myself, well well got us sale right here.
“…the bulck of our Buick business…”
That was rather beautiful.
Does anyone else remember the magazine ad for the 1992 Buick Skylark where they hired a “California” artist to paint an abstract painting in the style of the then new Skylark? It was actual a decent ad, and he was a very good artist.
I most certainly do remember that ad! It was interesting, even though the car was mediocre at best…
Yeah, if I recall correctly it ran in Popular Science and Popular Mechanics.
I found the ad! It turns out that the name is the artist is Ed Lister. A google search of the artist turns up that he does a lot of ads, including the backdrop of a 1980’s Toyota Corolla commercial, and a 1990’s Buick Roadmaster ad of the car painted on a barn.
http://books.google.com/books?id=zl4EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PT96&ots=Ej2XM-5PAn&dq=%22ed%20lister%22%20%22buick%20skylark%22&pg=PT96#v=onepage&q=%22ed%20lister%22%20%22buick%20skylark%22&f=false
His website is here:
http://edlisterscenic.com/
Wow, I do remember that ad after all!
Man, you guys remember stuff I’d long forgotten. Of course, you were probably young then, before the memory banks start clogging up.
Does anyone else think the Skylark coupe looks like a Ford Probe from the sides and rear?
1993 Skylark commercial I found. Enjoy.
Oh my, does the nice lady in the ad have a squint? 0:05
My mother owned a white ’97 Limited. I learned to drive in that car. The black interior always felt cramped to me. Glad to see it appreciated!
No younger buyers? Well, in late 1994 my then fiance (now wife) wanted a new car.
Her 90′ Cavalier was going to her mom. I pushed for US-branded models and while she was not crazy about anything from Chrysler, Dodge/Plymouth or Ford she did like the GM N-body cars. (I tried to push for a Camaro…..) At the time it seemed there were many (too many in her eyes) Grand Ams around; we’re in the north suburbs of Chicago. We looked at an Achieva but wanted a fold-down rear seat. I had info that said such was available but the salesman was typical – not educated on his own product. So we checked out the Skylark. She test-drove one and liked it, so we ordered one. She got a 2-door Limited with every option except the CD stereo (we had more tapes than CDs back then) and p/seat. It was not a GS – she drove alot for her job and I didn’t like the idea of her driving on various pot-holed streets with 16″ aluminum wheels and 55-series tires. My gal was 27 at the time; the car still exists and since late 2000 has been her mom’s. She wants to get rid of it; I might take it as a winter car but it needs head gaskets. 120K miles.
After a while of my wife having the car she complained that she saw only old ladies drving them. I said, “So what?” The car is very distinctive – especially now!
A few years ago a friend found some marketing material for 95′ Buicks; the average age of a Skylark buyer was 59! For a Roadmaster it was 70! (I do have a friend that bought a 95′ Roadmaster used back around 2000 – he was around 33 then but my friends and I all like V8 and RWD….)
I like the Skylark and frankly would love to keep it around! Other than the usual gasket issues the one design fault I have is that these cars did not take bumps well – much of the shock is transmitted to the cabin. However roads with minor dips and such seem fine – the car floats over those.