The Woodward Dream Cruise is a big deal in Michigan, but I avoid it on the official day because I hate crowds. I do, however, take the four hour round trip plunge the day before, when there are still plenty of cars and events to enjoy. I left my ’65 Skylark in Royal Oak to wander their car show with my dad, and it found a friend while we were gone. The ’67 certainly looks beefier (in my wife’s words), but I’m sticking with my ’65. It’s always been my favorite Skylark.
Nice cars ! .
I too hate crowds (being in riots cures one of liking crowds) but I wonder if maybe Woodward Drive should be on the bucket list ? .
My Son had a ’67 Buick GS , it was old and tired but amazingly fast for it’s size and heft .
-Nate
The ’65-67 Skylarks are some of my favorite cars-I really like their styling, especially the ’65 Skylark. I liked the ’65 Pontiac Tempest also, but the Buick edges it out. When Buick released the GS in 1965 I was absolutely smitten with it; I really wanted one- never mind that I had just graduated from High school and there was no way I was going to be able to afford it. Then my dream was shattered when I read the road test in “Car Life” magazine–the writers absolutely blasted it for mediocre handling and acceleration and abysmal brakes. Oh well, I was young and naïve. Still, it’s nice to see one again.
Buick had the styling mojo back then. The ’64-’65 Skylarks had a very premium look. Heavy chromed zinc castings in the grille, vs Chevy’s stamped aluminum is just one example. ’66-’67 Pontiac’s are probably my favorite of those years, but Buick still looked good.
Handling and brakes were horrible on all American cars back then. Buick suffered a little more because brand management wanted a softer ride than even Cadillac. That lead not only to seasick handling, but a lot of nosedive on braking.
Not only is the ride a little soft, but the brakes are definitely subpar. They’re pretty much the same brakes that are on my Corvair, stopping an extra 500+ pounds of car. It takes a lot of leg to slow it down from higher speeds.
I hear good and bad about Woodward. You park your car somewhere along Woodward to go wander around, and come back to find people leaning on it. Looks like your car is in good company though. I might still be tempted to check it out sometime, but it’s always on the same weekend as Moparfest.
Did you make it to the Concours at St.Johns this year Aaron?
I did not make it to St. Johns this year, for a couple of reasons, I guess. I decided to go to the vintage races at Waterford instead, I was leaving for Nashville the Tuesday after, and honestly, I just don’t like St. Johns’ venue as much as I liked Meadowbrook. It’s gone from a “don’t miss” to “meh” as far as I’m concerned.
The Woodward Cruise is terrific, crowds and all!
Anyone who has made any extra effort to visit any kind of car musuem owes it to him/herself to go at least once
There is no greater concentration of cars from the 1950s to the 1970s anywhere.
Regrettably, there are some ‘wannabees’ who will drive their post-2000 Camaro or Mustang or Honda, but it’s a great viewing event.
Many of the cars may not be “classics” or nice,
This year (Saturday) seemed a tad less crowded than usual, but Friday was a little busier than the usual Friday.
I go every year (since I live near Woodward), and each year has it’s own “flavor”. This year, I noticed several 71-73 Mustangs, but few Novas, and NO 75-79 GM X-Bodies. Tons of 65-67 Pontiac GTOs. I saw more Pintos than ever (3), and found a parking lot full of Vegas– 5 Cosworths and an original 71 with the original engine (something I had never seen as an adult).
If you like cars, it’s fun to watch, and sentimental reminder of the “American Graffiti” /50s-70s era, before the 1st energy crisis, when, other than Vietnam, most Americans were optimistic about the future.
As a post-baby boomer, I appreciate that 🙂
I love the Buicks of that era. One of my uncles had a midnight blue 1966 model that I rode in a lot as a small child.
Much like the 1964-67 Pontiac GTOs, how come these Buick Skylarks and GS400s were still much larger than 1968-72 112″ wheelbase coupe versions and the 1964-67 Chevelles which were barely larger than the 1975-79 Novas?
The second gen cars were just a couple of inches short in overall length. The proportions were very different though. The first gen cars appeared lower and sleeker where the second gen cars appeared to be significantly taller and more bulbous.
The first gen cars were 100-150 pounds lighter than the second gen cars btw.
Both your ’65 and that ’67 have their merits – like picking between children! Nice shot of these all-American classics. I only passed through Woodward, and not during the main event. I’d like to do the Dream Cruise one year, but I’m always conflicted as it falls during the same week as Back To The Bricks in Flint (which is my preference).
There was a purple ’65 Special (similar to your Skylark) daily-driver parked in the health care facility next to where I live. This was before I had resumed taking pictures, but I’d like to write that one up if I can find some half-decent shots.
Such a strong “Buick” identity in both of these great-looking cars.
When the (admittedly weird-looking) ’92 Skylark came out, I remember thinking that the front end at least had some Buick heritage, because it looked a little like a ’60s Skylark if you squinted hard enough. Unfortunately, the rest of the car was a bit unfortunate.
I agree with Joseph Dennis – both of these cars are beautiful, each in it’s own way. Which is my favorite is something that could result in a different answer on any given day, depending on my mood.
It’s hard to believe that this is the GM that produced the horrors of the 80’s and 90’s so often documented here. BOP, especially, just kept turning out beautiful cars of all sizes during the 60’s and these are two superlative examples – love both of them. When I was in high school with a new license a good friend had a new 65 Buick Wildcat convertible with four-speed and the 465, white on red/red. I still hold that car in the greatest esteem – so beautiful, so solid, and such fun to drive.
Nice find on that ’67. Your ’65 might be a bit understated by comparison but both are VERY sharp cars. If only Buick hadnt lost sight of when it made cars that were actually ‘cool’.
My nephew still doesn’t believe me when I tell him about the time I saw a GS400 spank a Roadrunner at Santa Pod.
Not that I doubt your honesty, but Im having a hard time with that one too. RR guy mustve been snoozing. But then, Im obviously biased.
That said, my dad’s first brand new car was a ’67 GS…so I have a soft spot for performance Buicks….
The road tests for ’67 GS400s usually had them running mid-to-high 14s, which is about what a 383 Roadrunner ran stock. Driver skill being what it is, and potential modifications being what they are, it’s a possibility. Both engines are pricey to build these days, but I’d think the Buick would be even more expensive due to parts availability (or lack thereof).
I agree about the cool factor of old vs. new Buicks. There’s a Buick-GMC-Cadillac dealer near my house, and when I walk through there I wonder why they even bother with Buick. Nice enough cars, but just no personality at all…
” My nephew still doesn’t believe me when I tell him about the time I saw a GS400 spank a Roadrunner at Santa Pod.”
Gem ;
You really had to have been there when the GS’ were new cars ~ they flat tore up the drag strips , they were expen$ive but those few who could afford them and loved their Buicks , lightened them up by stripping the interiors and so on , they were _amazing_ the see in action .
My Best Buddy’s Dad got out of the navy in 1947 , landed a good job @ Kinney Pump in Boston , Ma. , moved to Quincy (back then a nice place not like now) , got married , began raising a Family (three kids) and bought his first Buick and became a Buick Man for life ~ I’ve always been into other brands (Buicks being ‘ Old Man or ” Made Man”‘s cars to Yankees) but I was always impressed by everyone he ever had .
A long string of mid sized two doors Coupes , mostly Hard Tops , once (1970 ?) a Convertible , always nice , always shiny and clean , never allowed to get rusty / dented .
-Nate
Never understood why the 60’s Buicks and Oldsmobiles didn’t achieve the popularity of their GM siblings. My favorites include olds f-85 cutlass/442 and Buick specials.
Buick and Oldsmobile were upscale compared to Chevy and Pontiac. Even if not significantly higher in price, (I don’t have the numbers) the whole sales experience and image was not welcoming to the performance oriented young man shopping for his first new car. Pontiac, under Delorean, pulled those guys into the showroom.
Since older buyers still generally favored full-size cars, these simply did not sell as well. My 35 year old uncle bought a Buick Sportwagon in ’64 and I think he was a typical A-body Buick customer back then, moving up from a ’59 Chevy.
A nice pair indeed! And that red Nova looks like it’s attempting to photobomb you.
I like both cars, but my favorite of the two is definitely the ’65. Another car for my dream garage…and my wife would definitely agree. She’d like the color and the name…and they’re even the same age.
I always felt, behind the Pontiac, these Buicks were the prettiest of the 66-67 A bodies
+1
My mother had a 1965 Skylark four-door sedan. It was a nice car but it didn’t have the attractive roofline of the two-door hardtop. I believe only the two-door hardtop Buicks (Special and Skylark) and Oldsmobiles (F-85 and Cutlass) shared that roof. The model that was especially nice was the two-door hardtop with buckets and the center console.