Perfect timing: I was just about to write a piece on the challenges of the full-sized fastback, and how certain later ones in the sixties just didn’t work, like the ’66-’67 Dodge Charger and the Rambler Marlin. And what pops up at the CC Cohort this morning, but one of my favorite fastbacks ever, a 1950 Buick, shot by Charkle the 2nd (I should know who that is in CC-speak by now). And in my favorite color too: patina. Let’s savor this Buick and compare it to a few other big fastbacks to determine what works and what doesn’t, and why.
The 1950 is the successor to the 1948 Buick Special we examined a while back. GM embraced fastbacks in a big way during the 1941 – 1951 period, but they soon gave way to the more popular trunked sedans and coupes. It was a fad, essentially, harking back to the golden streamliner era of the thirties and the Tatras that ushered it in.
But the whole direction of car shape was changing: lower, longer, and most of all, much longer trunks. And therein lies the problem with the second big fastback revival of the mid sixties: the cars’ basic shape just didn’t lend themselves to fastbacks.
The trunks of cars in the sixties and seventies were absurdly long, and it changed the whole relationship of the passenger compartment to the overall car. The classic long-hood, setback passenger compartment and short trunk was tossed aside. Trunks were now as long as the hoods, if not more so. And of course, they were much lower too, exacerbating the challenge of turning them into fastbacks.
Not surprisingly, Bill Mitchell’s GM studios handled the problem much more deftly than the rest. How? By not trying to turn such a long car into a true fastback. The ’67 full-sized coupes. like this Buick Wildcat, have a long, flowing roof, and are often called “fastbacks”, but they’re not, really. Look at how much trunk is still sticking out behind the end of the roofline.
Buick took the 1968 A-Body coupes a bit further towards a true fastback, but it’s still far from what the Charger and Marlin were trying to do. GM understood the problem, perhaps from its past experience, or just better design competence.
Ford embraced fastbacks with a vengeance too; sometimes successfully, other times not. You won’t have to guess too hard about my feelings on this one. It’s not quite as bad as the Charger and Marlin, but it follows the same pattern: grafting a fastback roof unto a body that was never originally designed for one. Compare it to the red Wildcat for a bit of contrast.
The ’67 Mustang fastback worked so much better: “Look Ma! I’ve got a short trunk!” As well as a set-back passenger compartment (and not much rear leg room, of course).
The 1970 Camaro took that approach and spun it into gold. Even Pininfarina praised it. Yes, it worked on the pony cars, and other small hatchbacks soon to come, but it didn’t on full-sized cars, mostly.
So let’s enjoy the golden era of the big fastbacks, as embodied by this fine 1950 Buick Special. It’s rear end shows another aspect of why it worked so well, since it doesn’t have to resolve itself into the high trunk lip-line of the existing bodies like all those other sixties’ fastbacks, but gets its own dedicated tapering tail.
Enough of tails. Needless to say, the Buick has quite the front end to contrast its smooth backside. Its certainly one of the more memorable ones from that era, regardless of whether you love it or hate it.
A fish from the depths of the sea. And with a multi-hued color scheme. And those famous Buick reverse-dished wheels; might as well show them off.
This gives me a chance to remind all CC Cohort shooters to not try to shoot interior shots from the driver’s side window. It just doesn’t work, due to reflections. Hold the lens flat to the glass of the passenger side window, and it solves the problem.
The Special was Buick’s lowest cost line, and powered by the smallest version of the straight eight, a 248 incher with 115 hp. Dynaflow was optional, but this one apparently doesn’t have it. Just as well, as it really needed the big 320 inch eight to keep it from feeling like a tug boat pulling a barge.
Excellent, Paul, this topic needed doing and you’ve done it nicely.
Another way to look at the difference between ’40s and ’60s fastbacks is the rear axle location and rear overhang. These big Buick fastbacks have the rear axle far enough back for lots of back seat legroom. Haven’t looked it up, but I’m sure the big forties fastbacks had far more rear legroom than their sixties counterparts.
Mustang’s fastback came to mind the instant you started talking about the long trunk. Its proportions are right for a fastback at the expense of back seat legroom. I know because our family car in my junior high school days was a Mustang hardtop. I got tall quickly and practically had my knees in my teeth. In high school they traded the Mustang for the Ford XL version of that fastback above. Much better back seat.
In the second photo with the two Buicks and the Charger, take your eye from the Charger’s rear wheel up to the Buicks’ rear wheels. The difference jumps out.
Nice ol Buick I see it has kiwi rego recently vinned too we are now allowed to keep LHD on imported cars so ortiginals like this can just keep on keeping on
“Problem”?
Did somebody say there is a problem with full-size fastbacks? I don’t see a problem at all!
The only “problem” I see is that I don’t own one!
I still like the mid-60′s Marlins, Chargers and Barracudas, goofy as they may have been, but I’m pretty goofy too. Of course, GM pulled it off better than anybody, however, the big GMs, especially the 1965-66 Impalas did it the best.
Likewise! I especially admire the 67-69 Barracuda fastbacks, but the 64-66s are really not a bad looking car at all, far as I’m concerned.
On the 2nd-gen Barracudas, that little non-fastback coupe is what I find attractive because you didn’t see many of them. Of course, I’d take’em both!
I really want a 2nd-gen Barracuda convertible, since it kind of took the place of the Valiant convertible. But I remember a guy I knew growing up who had one of the coupes. Even in the late 1970s they were scarce.
Haven’t liked the fastback since about 1950. Possibly I understand why now. But I do love me some hatchback. Guess I need to read it again tomorrow.
Hatchbacks often are fastbacks! They’re fastbacks that open up. But they’re still fastbacks too, unless you’re talking about modern little hatchbacks with vertical hatches.
Like the ’74 Nova hatchback. I drove one in beater condition for awhile. The ten-mile-long hatchback weatherstrip didn’t leak too much.
I guess I’m making it obvious today, I’ve always had a thing for fastbacks.
Ahhh, the “Spirit of America” Chevies of 1974-76! My wife had a SoA ’74 Nova exactly like the one above when we were dating. It was a southern rust-free car that had a 350 2-bbl/TH350 and got maybe 16MPG.
I wish we could have kept it but at the time it was either that or my ’57 Chevy 150 2-door sedan.
As for the Buick…that ’50 fastback is my all-time favorite Buick. Even over the ’63 Riviera.
Mine was a beater by the time I got it, and had some rust from spending its first winter in Wisconsin. Vinyl roof was shot, paint fading, SoA trim very faded. By the time I ditched it in ’87, everything was sort of loose, you had to lift that long door a few inches to get it closed, and the headliner was held up by staples. The guys at work were starting to give me funny looks.
But it always ran great. It was my one and only American V-8 automatic cruiser and I still miss it.
Good grief, how old are you? I thought I was one of the most senior ones here at 61…
66
You’re still wet behind the ears, sonny.
@ Kevin
To be honest you had already dated yourself by something you said in an article. Don’t remember what. A guy in another thread (no name) here today mentioned grad school in 63. We keep giving ourselves away but I don’t really care. I just lost a friend today and we keep becoming fewer every year.
My favorite shirt is John Wayne on an “old guys rule” shirt. I don’t know what we rule but in my dreams I still have hair and don’t have cataracts. Dreams or not I am real happy to be here and kidding around on CC is as much fun as you can get for free.
Hope you get even older gramps.
WST, my favorite movie still is John Wayne in the “Searchers”…
Sorry, Paul, but when one old-timer speaks, all chime in! I guess we’re “Armchair Classics”!
Back to our regularly scheduled car program…
At Zackman: It was supposed to be one of the best pictures ever but in my youthful opinion is was great because Natalie Wood was hot. As she got older she got even better so that’s an opinion that I kept till she died.
Hey, I aspire to be as old as you guys are – much better than the alternative!
The perpetual struggle. Did not like the fastbacks but do like when it’s a hatchback. Brother (14 years older than me) owned a 48 chevy fastback. He was in the Navy and came home with it. I was about 8 years old. It was more than likely 1952-54 (not really 1950 was it?) when I realized how ugly I thought it was. Couldn’t see out the back window and I thought it just looked humpbacked. Then Dad got a 49. Still ugly.
When I realized how handy the hatchback was I was overseas. Toyota was the first that really got me. I guess it was a corolla. Workhorse of the orient. When I owned my first it was a Honda. It was a fastback also but had a big rear window. Good visibility. The one I really liked was the Nova. A guy in my apartment maintenance had one and I thought it was handy as a wagon.
To get a hatchback with good function today you have to buy an SUV or get an old wagon. Wet pavement and heavily loaded fwd hatchback can get scary. Last really good functioning (for utility) car was my (POS) Saturn Vue. Great till it broke but it was always broken. Before that the 77 Impala wagon. Like a giant 5 door hatch. Did air conditioning work out of it.
Zackman, I was born in June 43 and I think there are guys here that are at least as old as me. I had opinions before I had knowledge. So did all of us.
Yes, my old Nova hatchback was handy as a wagon, easier to get stuff in and out of and better looking too. All hatchbacks have one weakness: weatherstripping.
FWD and heavy loads just don’t go together, that’s why we don’t see FWD pickups.
A new hatchback wagon with good function is the Prius V, which has 67 cu. ft. cargo space with the back seats down. This matches Ford Escape and other compact SUVs, it’s about 2/3 the full-size SUVs.
PS: In a couple of years I’ll have had my ham radio license twice as long as required by the Quarter Century Wireless Assoc.
As a matter of personal taste, I think that the blue ’68 Buick is the least attractive car in this article. You can see how they’ve softened-up all the lines versus the ’67 Wildcat above it. They also made the lower body crease dip lower as it sweeps to the back of the car. To me, the whole rear fender on the blue Buick looks like a large flat expanse, and the large, strangely-shaped C-pillar from their pseudo-fastback makes it worse.
I have the same complaint about the rear fender with the current Cadillac CTS coupe, a modern take on fastback styling.
Great article.
The tiny wheels on the Charger and the Galaxie don’t help either, when there is such a massive body to support visually.
Buick didn’t actually call them “fastbacks”. As noted in the title, this two-door sedan is a “Sedanet”. (Where’s the “et” come from?). The four-door fastback is a “Jetback Sedan”, and the fastback business coupe is a “Jetback Coupe”. What we’d call a four-door notchback is the “Tourback”.
Page from Old Car Brochures.
“Sedanet” is pure marketing-speak, much like the late 1940′s Ford Fordor and Tudor sedans….
In the 1930′s it was a ‘touring back’ essentially a fastback except that the slope was shorter and a lot steeper (like twice as steep as a 40′s sedanet). This was to differentiate it from the extra cost ‘trunk back’ where the trunk lid bulged to give more luggage room.
I was also going to say, the usual generic term for a sedan or coupe with a distinct separate trunk, in the modern idiom, is a notchback.
Popular Science reviewed the ’50 Buick Special in its Sept. 1949 issue.
Isn’t Google Books wonderful?
The “1963½” full-size Ford Galaxie and Mercury Marauder was marketed as fastbacks even if they are only “semi-fastbacks”. The 1967 Wildcat might be classifield as a “semi-fastback”.
I like the oldest ones the best.
Now there’s a category worth thinking about.
Ford stylists held on to the full-size fastback theme by extending the B piler into almost a flying9 buttress, like t0he 1970 Mercury Monterey Marauder:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51gn99s9xuL._SS400_.jpg
It’s so nice to hear so many people say such wonderful things about me
my love of the fastback is rooted in that ’66-67 Mustang, but as a denizen of this board I’ve fallen in further love with the Volvo pv544, this Buick Special, the 48 Pontiac from a few days ago and all the mid 60s impalas/Wildcats/Rivs/Toros.. Thanks CC!
I think you may need professional help, Sir.
That’s what my analyst keeps trying to convince me of!
“This gives me a chance to remind all CC Cohort shooters to not try to shoot interior shots from the driver’s side window. It just doesn’t work, due to reflections.”
Can you get a circular polarizing filter for your camera? You’d probably have better luck with shots like this if you used one. If you’re still using the Lumix I don’t think you can get filters like that, but $300 on a nice used DSLR with a cheap zoom lens and a $6 polarizing filter would get you where you need to go.
My technique is to cup the lens of the point&shoot with my other hand and hold that close to the glass (not quite touching — as the sign says, ‘Do Not Touch’) which is enough to block reflections from the glass. It works pretty well, apart from a bit of reflection around the edge of the shot depending on the angle etc. This shot of a Lancia Flaminia was taken on a bright, sunny day.
Should attach the photo…
Good article. Even in compact form the fastback sometimes didn’t work so well. Look at the first- and second-generation Barracudas. The 1967-69s were a bit more graceful than the 1964-66s, but their arc was too flat, which gave the c-pillar too much mass when viewed in profile. A GM-style s-curve roofline would have worked much better. Of course, the Barracuda also had a disadvantage because it did not get a shortened wheelbase behind the front doors like the Mustang and Camaro.
Now consider the 1968-70 Javelin. It was a compromise between the Barracuda and Mustang. It had a short deck but not a shorter wheelbase behind the front doors. That could have screwed up the proportions but Dick Teague did a deft job with the c-pillar. Even though it’s absolutely huge — one of the biggest in the business — it worked surprisingly well because of the graceful interaction of the window cutouts and the GM-like, semi-fastback roofline.
The other factor was how the c-pillar’s shoulder-level character line tapered nicely into the Javelin’s fishmouth front grille. That — along with the wrap-around full-width taillights on the 1968-69s — served to pull the eye away from the massiveness of the c-pillar, or at least accentuate the width rather than the length of the rear end. Just lovely. And utterly destroyed by the 1971 redesign.
It’s too bad the Javelin didn’t have a fold-down back seat and hatchback, because it then would have had the roomiest back seat and the most cargo capacity of any pony car . . . but still would have looked much better than the Barracuda. A major reason why the popularity of ponycars quickly faltered is that they weren’t as versatile as sedan-based two doors such as the Duster.
(Okay, so the Duster’s semi-fastback managed to look better proportioned than the 1967-69 Barracuda fastback or hunchback. But its front end was stubby and its rear might as well have been named Bertha Butt. Yuk.)
To me, the 60s fastbacks — particularly the ’64-’66 Barracuda, Marlin, and ’66-67 Charger — are very angle-dependent. With the Charger, I think it’s partly because of the relatively narrow track (59.5/58.5 inches F/R) and 14-inch wheels. In profile, the ’66-’67 Charger looks pretty good, but as soon as you start getting to three-quarter angles, the sheer volume of the roof makes the body of the car look enormous relative to the footprint of the wheels, giving the impression of a football linebacker balanced precariously on ballet slippers several sizes too small.
I kind of like the ’67-’69 Barracuda fastback, but it ends up taking a back seat to the notchback hardtop, which has a very nice (and decidedly second-gen Corvair) roofline with thin sail panels.
In fairness to the Duster, it was sort of an improvisation designed to share as much tooling as possible with the standard Valiant body, so some awkwardness is to be expected.
I have a 50 Buick sedanet, the one problem they had and I think it is why the did away with them, is the very limited trunk space.. but there beautiful. Vern
C’mon, the ’67 Wildcat is a fastback just as much as the Impala hardtop of the same year.
I’m sure the stylists have a term for the angle of the rear window like ‘tumblehome’ or something similiar. If the window is within a certain angle, I’m sure it qualifies as a technical ‘fastback’.
As to which car was the best looking fastback, those ’67-’68 Mustangs are surely a top contender. Conversely, one of the most extreme fastbacks (being almost completely horizontal) would have to be the nearly flat rear window of the ’71-’73 Mustangs.
They refer to the angle of the screens as how ‘fast’ it is
My grandparent’s first Buick was a ’50 Special, and had many [53, 58, 61, 65, 69] until the last Electra in 1973. Grandma switched to Chevy Impala in ’76, as a widow.
Who invented the denomination fastback? What does it really mean? And these new-fangled “coupés” (Mercedes CLS, Audi A7 etc), shouldn’t they be called fastbacks instead? AGB