As you know, I’ve got a real thing for streamliners. Preferably a Tatra, the mother of the genre, at least in terms of production cars. But in a pinch, a good old American streamliner would satisfy quite nicely. Especially so this 1942 Buick Roadmaster Sedanet fastback, with its endlessly-long hood ensconcing its big 320 cubic inch straight eight. Quite the contrast to a T87 with its air-cooled rear 2.5 L V8, but there’s something to be said for this more conventional configuration:
Like: I want.
For reference’s sake, here the T87. Like so many things European, it’s a bit more practical and space efficient. But there are times when such considerations are best thrown into the slipstream.
The original T77 was already nine years old when the new 1942 big GM cars arrived, with the most advanced styling in the land. 1942 was not exactly a good year to introduce a totally new car, as the tooling would all-too soon have to go into storage for the duration of the war.
And after being dusted off and reinstalled on the factory floor, it would serve all the way through 1948, as Buick did not use the new 1948 C-Body that Olds and Cadillac did until one year later, a bit of a mystery. But it was still looking mighty fine then, as this body was one of the best ever to come out of GM, and aged very well.
Only the two-door sedanet came in the fastback style.
Ever wonder what trunks in these were like? I did. And now I know. Not terribly capacious, but folks tended to pack pretty lightly back then.
Forget the trunk; the other end is where it’s at. The clamshell hood is open to expose the big 320 inch Buick Fireball straight eight, with compound carburation for extra zip at higher speeds. That was standard on the big eight, and optional on the small 248 inch unit in the Special. Power was stated at 165 hp @3800 rpm and torque was 278 ft.lbs @2200 rpm. That was a very healthy figure for 1942, equaled only by the larger 356 ci big Packard.
a track in upstate New York
One of the more deeply etched memories involves seeing one of these big Buick fastbacks in an unlikely place: a dirt track stock car race. It was a warm summer evening in 1973, and a GF and I drove up to Mt. Vernon to a classic old dirt track oval to catch the races, something that every once in a while I would indulge in. The only car that I remember clearly was this big Buick fastback and its bellowing straight eight. I was almost shocked to see it out there on the track, such a big car mixing it up with smaller ones.
Did it ever win? Against the hot tri-five Chevys that dominated? Of course not. But it and its driver put up a hell of a fight, and its uniqueness, both in looks and sound, made it utterly unforgettable. I can see it in front of me now…
That endeared me to these big beasts forever, as if that needed doing. A Big Buick, no matter how old, was still something to command interest and respect 25-30 years later. And today.
Can’t forget to show its sumptuous interior. High quality materials through and through.
And I love how this For Sale ad at Mecum includes a shot to the rear, where the long flowing roof and rear window are made very visible, unlike the traffic behind the car itself. Not a problem; the Buick could outrun 99% of it anyway.
The 1942 ushered in this new front end style that became a trademark for the brand for quite a few years. I rather prefer this simpler style of the original, as it got a bit heavy handed with time.
I need to run; preferably in this Buick.
Images from an expired Mecum sales ad.
That green car is so nice. What a great side profile. IMO the Wraith side profile is reminiscent (and I love the Wraith).
Lovely indeed! This Buick really did take automotive styling to another level in 1942. Really, you can see Buick and Chrysler diverging seriously from one another by 1942 – the Buick oozed youth and power while the Chrysler was the definition of conservatism, despite its snazzy new front end.
I would argue that they began diverging around 1936. Buick, led by Harlow Curtice, enthusiastically took full advantage of Harley Earl’s styling center, and brought out the high-performance Century.
Late 1930s Chryslers weren’t bad looking cars, and they were certainly well-built, but they weren’t in Buick’s league for looks and performance.
Chrysler was at least using a “name” designer as its design head in Raymond Dietrich. His designs were certainly less consistent than those of GM (especially after streamlining took hold), but he had W P Chrysler’s ear and had some clout until Chrysler had his stroke. The 1939 cars are pretty attractive, which are (I believe) the last over which he exerted any influence. The 1940 line (41 for Plymouth) was an entirely different direction that was totally under the thumb of engineering.
I never cared for the 1937 and 1938 Mopars (including the Chrysler). The fronts, in particular, look awkward.
The 1939 Chryslers were a major improvement, but they look less substantial than the Buicks. The Buicks – like the other GM cars during this era – manage to look substantial and stylish, but not overblown.
Agreed. And a quite amazing refresh on the same body. The ’37-’38 front ends really undersold the quality of the body design. Plus the ’39’s are probably Chrysler’s best example of badge engineering around a basic front clip shape.
+1
Always liked the GM sleek look of the fastback model. This one is a real gem.
Looking at those pictures and remembering back to my 37 Special. The trunk is deeper (my Special was the cheaper “luggage back”, aka fastback, rather than the larger humped trunk) but that mounting of the spare is identical. I wonder when Buick changed the color of the engine blocks, because mine was a deeper blue, although the two engines were unchanged over the five years other than the Compound Carburetion.
Man, those were gorgeous cars. My favorite 42, along with the DeSoto.
These pictures bring out Buick’s uniquely complex rear lighting in those years. Separate tail and stop on each side, turn signals above, reflector dots dug into the fenders on each side. 8 separate elements. Some low-priced cars still had (at least standardly) just one tail/stop light on the left.
Are you sure about the lighting setup? I had a 47 Roadmaster sedan back in high school, and my memory is that the tail and brake lights were the same, which were the road portion of the taillights. The pointed portion of the taillights were the directionals, unused otherwise. And what looks like a light on the trunk was just a fancy emblem, not lighted at all. The embedded parts in the fenders were indeed just reflectors.
On the other hand, that Roadmaster was 50 years old by the time I had it, so I can’t say for certain that all the lighting was working correctly by then.
Once Again, Paul and I agree on a car.
Beautiful car, want!
I always thought the Honda Crosstour’s profile somewhat echoed the shape of these beautiful cars…
The resemblance is a little stronger from a ¾ view… other than the higher back end.
Oh, my. If retro is going to be brought back, this would be a nice place to.go. and look, the rear windows roll down!
That is a buick. It has a big toothy grille and lots of presence and sweeping fenders. It’s desirable and commanding. I don’t know what can be done to make today’s crop of buicks more distinctively buick and premium but they need to do something.
Harley Earl offered that front fenders fully swept down the sides to the rear fenders to Cadillac first. Remember GM had already built and gifted the 1941 Cadillac “The Duchess” personal limousine to the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. That high-image car was very much in the newsreels of that equally high-image couple. Nicholas Dreystadt, Cadillac General Manager, turned down the idea for the 1942 Cadillac for unknown reasons.
Earl immediately offered it to Harlow Curtiss for the 1942 Buick, who saw the instant benefit to give Buicks a unique feature. It was only applied to the C-Body Roadmaster and Super two door sedanets and convertibles, the four door sedans had to wait until 1946. Since the feature was reserved for Buick among GM cars, the gambit paid off.
One other influence the 1942 Buicks exerted on another carmaker: when styling the Hudson Step-Downs, Frank Spring benchmarked the high beltline and low “pill-box” slit windows of the 1942 Buick, a sedanet kept in the styling department for reference.
I just saw a youtube on “The Duchess” two days ago and was about to bring it up. Someone spent $400,000 restoring it.
Didn’t Cadillac keep a 4 door fastback until 1948?
The 1946-’47 Cadillac 61 shares the four door fastback B-Body with other GM makes.
I read somewhere a while back that Alfred P. Sloan told Harlow Curtis to dial it back a bit with the Buicks of this era because they were putting too much pressure on Cadillac and possibly cannibalizing sales of GM’s premier marque. I don’t know if that is true but looking at what each offered at the time I can believe it.
Just prior to World War II, Buick teamed up with Brunn to produce the Limited. It was a luxurious, custom-bodied limousine. When Cadillac management got word of it, they went to GM leadership and complained that Buick was treading on its turf. Buick was ordered by GM management to discontinue the program.
They probably would have had to quit the Brunn custom program anyway as Brunn was about to close up its custom body business after 1941.
In truth, Cadillac had little to worry about, they had grabbed the mass-market luxury car gold ring with the Series 61 & 62, were never seriously challenged again until the 1980’s for the title. Buick sales were again burgeoning, the Brunn custom program was a peripheral vanity to the main task Curtiss had accomplished: making Buick into a money pressing press for GM. Even made dour old Alfred Sloan smile in his peculiar way…
Buick was the closest to being an automaker by itself within GM. It had great power because it had been the backbone (profits) for GM for decades. And its lineup from the affordable Special to the top end Limiteds was unparalleled within GM.
If GM were to have been broken up for too much market power back in the ’40s or 50s, it should have been Buick that was spun off. It could have added a lower end six cylinder and been a market powerhouse by itself.
+1
In the early 1960’s when the breakup concept was closest to reality, the general feeling among the dealers was Chevrolet-Cadillac and Pontiac-Oldsmobile-Buick with the C-C side having a middle brand added. Big topic of occasional discussion at the Paczolt dinner table back then.
Maybe “Caprice” would’ve been launched as a brand rather than a model (that was really actually a trim level), to keep the C theme. Or maybe that’s where the oft-talked-about but never-happened LaSalle revival would’ve come in. With the European market starting to become less of several national markets, one splitoff would get Opel and the other Vauxhall. GMC would of course go with Pontiac-Olds-Buick since Chevy has its’ own built-in truck line.
Let’s do Disney next! Rather than multiple studios vertically integrated in themselves I see at least three separate content producers (“core” Disney, Touchstone-Fox and Marvel-Lucas-Pixar) and one independent distributor whose only content produced in-house would be sports commentary and ABC News.
The tech giants are both easier and harder. Still an interesting topic…
Glorious
Back to the Future (I know that wasn’t a Buick or a sedan)
when Buick meant something really good
Your comment “when Buick meant something really good” reminded me instantly of Buick’s decades long tag line:
“When Better Automobiles are Built, Buick Will Build Them”
As one who owned a 1949 Buick and who vividly recalls is beauty and engineering quality, I grieve the loss of the era when “Buick meant something really good.”
With Compound Carburetion the big Buick engine claimed 165 bhp. 144 bhp was for the postwar version with a single 2 bbl (which had been 141 bhp from 1938, the year the Turbulator pistons were adopted, to 1940.) The only other American passenger car engine in this class was the Packard 356 straight eight, which claimed 160 bhp with standard compression and 165 with optional high compression head.
All the Buick eights sounded great. I don’t know how to describe it, but it seemed like a velvety, refined, yet menacing rumble. Kind of like the George Sanders of engines.
In the movie “Rain Man” one can hear the Buick Straight 8 burble several times as it passes by the camera…If you have a good surround sound system and crank it up a bit.
Yes, I notice these things.
🙂
Right you are. The 144 number is from my Standard Encyclopedia of American Cars; they got it wrong, and not for the first time.
Text corrected now.
Paul, May I suggest one more edit; this one probably a simple transposed number pair. Your listing of the Packard Super 8 engine size is 365, when it should be 356, assuming you are referring to the 1940 to 1950 engine.
Thanks. Fat-fingered it.
“All the Buick eights sounded great.”
Indeed they did, especially when fitted with manual transmissions. They made an almost musical sound when accelerating in first and second gears.
That car is stunning. While i don’t love the front- it looks gawky to me- the side profile is perfection, and this is the perfect color IMO for it. Love the back end and the interior. I cannot think of a car today that looks good from the side or even distinctive. Todays cars are much better than they have ever been but sorely lack this kind of style.
Very nice. Great car for a Route 66 trip
I am an unabashed fan of these 40’s and early 50’s fastbacks (I’ll take mine from Packard, please). They are particularly stunning in two-tone color schemes (which Paul included an example of in his original post).
I may be wrong, but as I recall these fastbacks weren’t super popular in their time, due to poor rear visibility and styling trends that favored three-box designs.
I’m curious about single carburetion on a straight 8. Some time ago I studied hopping up straight sixes, and one of the things I learned is that with the common short-runner intake manifolds, cylinders #1 and #6 can have fueling issues in hi-po applications. This brought about [a] long-runner intake manifolds, like the “hyper-pak” for the Chrysler slant 6, or [b] multiple carburetion.
It seems like this would be multiplied on a straight 8 with a single carburetor on a short-runner manifold. Was it not an issue because this was a low-revving engine?
I think the same issues apply to the straight 8, but most Buicks were only considered “high performance” for the time. Even the single-carburetor 320 wasn’t a highly stressed engine; maximum RPM in street form is really around 4000 rpm, and it would have been out of breath by that point. Straight 8 Buicks share intake port inlets on paired cylinders; for example, cylinders 1 and 2 share an intake port, which then splits off inside the head.
On my 263, I’ve never noticed any obvious difference in spark plug appearance on the end cylinders.
“cylinders 1 and 2 share an intake port”
I meant “intake manifold runner” here…sorry.
Thanks for the insight, Aaron!
A great find! Splendid choice! 🙂
Am I a heretic for wanting this power plant swapped into a 1941 Caddy 60 Special? Always loved the noise a Fireball 8 makes, and have a long-standing disdain for flatheads….
This looks like a powerful car because of its styling and proportions. The long hood, the long straight chromed spears running along the lower half, the proportion of window to roof, the huge rear – powerful and phallic.
I like that grille. It is too toothy, too high, and perfectly extreme. Definitely looks toned down a bit in later years.
There is a lot of character here. I like it a lot.
Something I’ve never noticed before, but it seems the 42 like this one have an extra character line in the sheet metal of the front fender and door, just above the higher chrome trim line, as compared to the post-war Buicks of the same body. Not sure if I like it better with the line or without, but in every other way, I think the 42s are the best of this body style.
What a gorgeous car. I love it from all angles, but particularly the interior shot of the back seat and rear windows. The interior looks so organic; especially the headliner. That interior would be a wonderful place to take a sunny afternoon ride with the windows down.
I must say, I’ve never thought of these as a streamliner, as those were generally strange-wonderful instead of this sweet-wonderful. I also doubt much airflow engineering was involved either, why, that giant chromed steam heater out of the Empire State on the front would alone suck in enough resisting air to empty the Hindenburg.
How precislely do these embody the buyers (or the aspirations to be one), exuding the essence of comfortably-off in each fold and trim: a well-filled man in an expensively-tailored suit which contains him just so. Of course there are eight cylinders in a line, for that burble came too from the hoods of all the great cars. Henry had somehow and forever made the V8 a thing not of the management but of the ordinary man. Satisfyingly, the hood needed to conceal the long and silent arrangement puts our man at a suitable distance from them. It is as fast as anything on the road, save the 12’s and 16’s of the plutocrats, and those people, admired in part, are also quietly disdained for their non-Pilgrim excesses of house or dress or car.
Inside, tasteful fat lounges of dark velour, a dash like a deco mantle and not the uneccessary machined gleam of something like a Cord. Seventy miles an hour sofas, hats on too, for that low-seeming roof is a clever trick. A cocoon of class in the classless society.
I swear it has an American accent, the sound of baritone male voicing the narrative in a film noir. I think it says, “Deserved by those who have done well.”
It still impresses as intended, and in the American context, it inspires, by way of its sober temptations, a man to do better.
Even time-shorn of its role, it happens that it is also, by any standard of the world, a very beautiful car indeed. Then and now.
I must say, I’ve never thought of these as a streamline…
Exactly what I was thinking. I don’t see the connection with Tatra at all. The Buick is styled, the Tatra is designed. Both are beautiful in their own way (and the ’42 Buick is absolutely stunning, especially with those fenders), but it’s not the same philosophy.
But hey, why complain that a CC post contains a nice pic of a T87?
Of course it’s a streamliner. Are you two even aware of what that term means?
Streamline Moderne was a design/architectural movement that is a development of Art Deco, wherein the excessive ornamentation was stripped, inspired by the aerodynamics of airplanes and such. It was all about enveloping objects in minimalistic fashion: ships, buildings, cars, trains, toasters, appliances of all sorts, furniture, etc..
As to automobiles, we’ve covered this very extensively in my three-part Automotive Aerodynamics series. There were of course early aerodynamic efforts but they were essentially oddballs, as the public was not prepared for the idea of aerodynamic cars until the Streamilne Moderne movement made them suddenly the fashion darlings of 1933-1934 or so.
I don’t have time to recap all of this here, but in terms of the Tatra and Buick, please keep in mind that the 1934 Chrysler Airflow was every bit as much a pioneer (and others too) as the Tatra. A key difference was that the Tatra had a rear engine, which allowed for a shorter hood as well as a lower stance.
Whereas Tatra and some other Jaray designs optimized aerodynamics, Streamline Moderne was primarily concerned about aesthetics, but functional aspects like aerodynamics were an essential element too. It just wasn’t the only one.
As the Chrysler Airflow proved convincingly, design was paramount to success on the market for aerodynamic cars. The Tatra would never have sold here in any numbers; if GM had built it (which they never would have), it would have inevitably been a spectacular flop.
Harley Earl understood all too well what Americans (and lots of Europeans) wanted in a streamlined car. As such, the ’42 Buick is no different than so many streamlined high end French cars from the same era: big long hood with powerful front engine and an enveloping body with lots of streamline moderne design elements.
Enough already. But “streamline/streamliner” is not the same as maximum aerodynamic efficiency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streamline_Moderne
Thank you for proving my point.
Aerodynamics and “Streamline Moderne”, but they are not the same thing. The Tatra / Airflow / Jarays on one hand, the French carrossiers / 42 Buick on the other. The difference between the two is kind of like comparing Dave Brubeck and the Rolling Stones. It’s five guys playing music in both cases, but the output is pretty different. And equally enjoyable.
The term “streamliner” as applied to cars is perhaps sketchier. You’re happy calling both the Airflow and the Buick that came a decade later the same thing, because “Streamline Moderne”. But that appellation could only be used on the Buick, not the Airflow. As you pointed out yourself, the Buick was “primarily concerned with aesthetics” – it’s styled to look aerodynamic,as opposed to actually being aerodynamic. So it’s not a streamliner in my book.
The Airflow was as “Streamline Moderne” as it gets. It’s usually on the cover or a main illustration on any book or article about Streamline Moderne.
And if you think the Tatra was ‘designed” purely for aerodynamics only, and not “styled’, i beg to differ. How do you explain the dorsal fin? 100% stylistic gimmick.
And yes, the ’42 Buick’s styling has functional aerodynamic value. It’s undoubtedly much more aerodynamic than most american cars of the era.
Trying to draw a hard line between aerodynamic and streamlined styling on a car is utterly impossible, unless it’s going to just be a perfect teardrop with no other consideration for how it looks or functions. People will not buy a vehicle whose looks are not acceptable.
Jaray figured that out early on. His early prototypes were hideous, and none of the car companies would buy a license for them until he moderated the aerodynamic qualities with aesthetics and practical considerations.
This applies very much to the Tatras. These weren’t ideal aerodynamic shapes; as I pointed out in my “Who’s the Real Father of the VW” post, Rumpler’s odd and unsalable Tropfenwagen from 1923 had much better aerodynamics than the T87.
I know you carry a torch for the T87, but it was not some all-out exercise in streamlining, Far from it, with a Cd of 0.36. It was a pragmatic design for a comfortable, roomy 6-seater sedan that incorporated some of the latest technology in aerodynamics, engine placement, air cooling, etc..
I’m pretty sure there’s no Cd. available for the ’42 Buick. But it clearly uses solid aerodynamic principles to good effect, given that it sits on a conventional chassis.
Unless you want to build an aesthetically unsalable and impractical car, building one with absolute minimum aerodynamic drag is just not a reality. There’s no way to draw a a line in the sand and say this car is aerodynamic and this one has some aerodynamic styling gimmicks. Like dorsal fins, as an example.
I love Buick’s design language from this era, and this one looks fetching in aqua. I also like the “Sedanet” nomenclature. “Just don’t call it a coupe!” Hahaha
Beautiful car and the early grille looks better to my eye than the heavy chrome postwar versions. Though my favorite ’42 was the more conservative but classier Packard Clipper introduced in ’41, and which in it’s fancier Custom One Sixty ’42 version had the mighty 9 main-bearing 356 (not 365) cu in powerplant with hydraulic valves. Packard was known as the “Master Engine Builder” for good reason.
One of the many reasons I prefer a late ’40s Packard to a Buick or Cadillac, is the unique headliner found in the 1946-50 Custom Super Eight cars. It visually lengthens the interior by challenging the brain’s perception when compared to all the other automobile headliners.
It does this by designing the headliner’s internal ribs to be installed front to rear, not side to side. While it is visually stunning, it was always a challenge to install one of these and get it correct. That’s why only the top-of-the-line Packards had these.
For a 2-door fastback, sitting in the back seat and looking forward and upward, it’s as if the interior is as long as one in the limousine. I’m enclosing a photo of the rear seat & headlining on a 1947 Packard Custom Super Eight 2-door fastback, in blue broadcloth.
Forgot to include the photo!
Somehow a comment I wrote about the 1947 to 1950 Packard Custom Super Eight Packard 2-door fastback didn’t get posted. I was referring to the special headliner in those cars, with ribs that ran not side to side, but front to rear. [Or it is rear to front?]
Sitting in the back seat of these cars and looking upwards makes the car seem a couple of feet longer. Photo above shows a 1947 Packard Custom Super Eight 2-door fastback in blue wool broadcloth upholstery.
I’m also including a photo of the 1948 sedan showing the long ribs as well. This car was built with the most popular color interior for the Custom Eight; Tan wool broadcloth. Also available was Blue, Green, & Maroon.
A stunner. Thank you!
As one who, decades ago, owned a 1949 Buick and who vividly recalls its beauty and engineering quality, I grieve the loss of the era when “Buick meant something really good.”