Although it listed for about $150 more than a comparable Chevrolet Impala V-8, Buick pitched the 1966 LeSabre as “a miser disguised as big-spending royalty” — an economical big car that looked more expensive than it really was. This exceptionally well-preserved low-mileage LeSabre sedan exemplifies what Buick had to offer in this league, and features the desirable “400” High Performance Group, with the 3-speed Turbo Hydra-Matic behind the lightweight Buick 340 V-8 engine.
GM’s B-body full-size cars had a lot in common in body structure in the mid-1960s, and if you just read the specifications, you could easily assume that they were all mostly the same wine in different bottles (as they eventually became). However, they definitely didn’t perform the same, and each version had its pluses and minuses. For family car buyers, the LeSabre was typically one of the best.
As it had been since 1959, the 1966 LeSabre was the cheapest B-body Buick. It was no longer the smallest or cheapest car the division offered — buyers could have the midsize Special or Skylark for hundreds of dollars less — but it remained a vital chunk of Buick business. Buick built 151,910 of the LeSabre and slightly fancier LeSabre Custom this year, more than a quarter of total model year production.
The base LeSabre was technically a “medium-priced” car, falling in a higher class of price and prestige than a full-size Chevrolet, Ford, or Plymouth, but Buick deliberately kept LeSabre prices within reach of a customer who might otherwise consider an Impala or Galaxie. A four-door LeSabre sedan with power steering and automatic transmission listed for about $3,222, $149 more than a comparable V-8 Impala. Making some allowances for interest and finance charges, that was about $5 extra a month on a typical 36-month car note (the equivalent of about $56 extra in 2025 dollars).
Those few extra dollars a month got you a more prestigious badge, but the LeSabre offered a decent amount of substance too. Through 1965, Consumers Union (CU), publisher of Consumer Reports, rated the LeSabre the best of the mid-price full-size cars, “on the basis of its all-around qualities; a smooth engine, without excessive weight or power, a body exceeded in dimensions or comfort by few, fairly adequate control of a soft and quiet ride, and good steering and handling.” CU was somewhat less impressed with the 1966 model, but they found it still had a better ride and a much better repair record than the Impala.
The LeSabre differed from the pricier Buick Wildcat in using the smaller V-8 engine from the intermediate line. In 1964 and 1965, this had displaced 300 cid, but for 1966, Buick stroked it to 340 cid, giving 10 extra gross horsepower and 30 lb-ft more torque. The added displacement provided better pickup with only a modest reduction in gas mileage. Also, the 340 was still lighter than most rival V-8s (it weighed over 100 lb less than the bigger Buick Nailhead engines), which contributed to the LeSabre’s reasonably composed handling and plush ride. Despite the ad claims, the 340 wasn’t especially thrifty, however; Consumers Union averaged an unspectacular 12.5 mpg over 2,000 miles, and the Buick was about 1 mpg thirstier than a 283 Impala on the highway.
One of Consumers Union’s biggest complaints about the LeSabre was that GM remained married to what CU saw as fundamentally obsolescent 2-speed automatic transmissions. The LeSabre, like the midsize Special and Skylark, was usually sold with the Super Turbine 300, a 2-speed automatic with a switch-pitch torque converter. In 0 to 60 mph sprints or other straight-line acceleration tests, this was adequate, but in the real world, the lack of an intermediate gear for highway passing or hilly terrain was frustrating. Both Ford and Chrysler offered 3-speed automatics for similar money.
If you wanted a 3-speed automatic in a 1966 Impala, you needed to buy one of the biggest engines, which needed it the least. However, Buick offered LeSabre shoppers an intriguing alternative: the “400” High Performance Group, which paired the high-compression “Wildcat 375” version of the 340 cid engine, making 260 gross hp, with the 3-speed Turbo Hydra-Matic transmission.
I think Buick may have shot themselves in the foot by pricing this option at an intimidating-looking $263.13. However, since Buick charged $205.24 for the 2-speed automatic, the 400 package was actually just $57.89 more. The high-compression engine was also available as a standalone option on cars with the 2-speed auto for $26.32, so substituting the 3-speed automatic really only cost you an extra $31.57 — well worth it, since the 3-speed switch-pitch TH400 was a crisp, durable, refined transmission that gave the 340 notably more flexibility.
Car Life, testing the 1965 version of this package (with the 300 cid four-barrel engine and Turbo Hydra-Matic), had recorded a brisk 9.2-second 0 to 60 mph time, which wasn’t muscle car stuff, but sparkling performance for a full-size family sedan. I don’t have an instrumented test of the 1966 LeSabre 400 with the 260 hp 340 cid engine, but I’d expect it to be a tick or two quicker and slightly thirstier than the ’65. Consumers Union recorded an unimpressive 14.5-second 0 to 60 time for a 1966 LeSabre with the lower-compression 220 hp base engine and 2-speed automatic; they were annoyed that Buick didn’t offer the 3-speed automatic with the base engine, which didn’t require expensive premium gas.
Consumers Union was also disappointed in the brakes. At the beginning of the decade, Buick’s big 12-inch finned drums (aluminum in front) had been class-leading, but the cars had gotten heavier and expectations had increased. CU found the 1966 LeSabre still suffered less brake fade in repeated stops than did the B-body rival Oldsmobile Jetstar 88, but substantially more than the heavier Chrysler Newport. Worse, power brakes (which CU judged necessary to manage the higher effort required when the brakes did fade) made it far too easy to lock the wheels in a quick stop. CU rated the 1966 LeSabre’s brakes poor.
The white sedan pictured here is a base LeSabre, whose interior trim was a bit fancier than an Impala or Galaxie 500, albeit not as fancy as a Chevrolet Caprice or LTD. If the standard LeSabre interior wasn’t adequately posh for you, you could choose a LeSabre Custom, which cost about $93 more.
The LeSabre back seat was roomy, albeit not any roomier than other GM B-body models. Consumers Union thought this year’s rear seat was less comfortable than in previous years, marred by cushions that were “too soft for good support.”
This car is well-equipped, with air conditioning, a clock, a Sonomatic pushbutton AM radio, power steering, and power brakes. Leaving a little room for minor extras (like the speed warning buzzer I see on the speedometer), the original sticker price was probably a few dollars shy of $3,900 (a relative worth of about $43,800 in 2025 dollars). Not exactly a miserly price, but not “big-spending royalty” either.
Incidentally, this was the first year that backup lights and both front and rear seat belts were standard on all full-size GM cars.
Because I’m shallow and have limited need for back seat space, I’d prefer this similarly equipped LeSabre sport coupe (two-door hardtop), whose sleeker roofline is better-looking, but the four-door sedan was what most LeSabre buyers chose back then. In the base LeSabre line, the sedan outsold the sport coupe by 39,146 to 13,843 for 1966. These were primarily family cars, and practicality was important.
Which makes the low mileage and condition of this particular LeSabre something of an eye-opener. The Orlando Classic Cars listing offers few clues about the car’s backstory, but the odometer reads a mere 4,448 miles, and its original condition inside and out indicates that the digits are still making their first turn around the dial. What spared this car from the usual destiny of the family sedan, accumulating mileage and incidental wear-and-tear until it got too rusty or mechanically frail to go on? Whatever the reasons, it makes this car a remarkable time capsule.
The 1966 LeSabre wasn’t a quantum leap over a B-body Impala or Pontiac Catalina, but it was better — and nicer — in certain quantifiable ways, and it didn’t cost a whole lot more. No one other than a starry-eyed Buick ad copywriter would have called it an economy car, but it was a good example of what middle-class family car buyers could get if they were willing to spend a little more for the upgrade.
Related Reading
Vintage Car Life Road Test: 1965 Buick LeSabre 400 – Small Block Big Body Buick (by Paul N)
1962 Buick LeSabre Four-Door Hardtop: The Best Mid-Priced Family Car Of 1962 (by me)
Curbside Classic: 1966 Buick LeSabre Hardtop Sedan – Shoes Matter (by Joseph Dennis)
Curbside Classic: 1966 Buick Wildcat Four Door Sedan – Mild Thing (by Paul N)
Better off with a Pontiac or Olds. (which were likely to have 3-speed TH and big engines (389 or 425)).
The new Buick 340 non-nailhead engine was a lemon.
The cooling system in the new 340 V8 was prone to overheating because its cooling system was too small (14 quart vs 17 for Olds and 20 in Pontiac). So no good for towing, heavy traffic, high altitude, A/C.
The Buick also was known for not being able to start in wet/humid weather because the distributor cap was not weather tight and was located in the front of the engine (vs the back in the Olds and Pontiac and Chevy)
For less money you could get a Pontiac Catalina or Ventura (or maybe a bigger Executive) with a 389 and 3speed TH. (Pontiac did not put in the 2 speed in the big Pontiacs in 66).
Also the Olds would be better because even though the 330 with the 2speed was standard in the Jetstar, most buyers got the 425 and 3-speed by upgrading to Dynamic88 for a minimal premium that also included other upgrades.
Consumer Union was not very impressed with the 1966 Catalina; they liked the powertrain (they had the regular-fuel 389 with TH400), but they found the handling sloppy, the ride poorly controlled, the controls poorly marked and full of collision safety hazards, and comfort only fair. It was also prone to rattles. The Catalina was only $70 cheaper than the LeSabre (and would have actually cost more with Ventura trim), and its depreciation was a little higher, so it wasn’t a particularly outstanding value.
For family car duty, there wasn’t much point to the Star Chief Executive (it wasn’t called just “Executive” until 1967), since it was over $200 more expensive than the Catalina, had no more interior space, and really didn’t offer anything you couldn’t get on the Catalina. Ordering a Catalina with Ventura trim made vastly more sense.
The Jetstar 88 was mostly a strong argument for spending the extra $86 for the Dynamic 88; it was inferior to the LeSabre to several respects. Consumer Union also concluded that the Dynamic 88 was “a much better buy.”
Aaron: You cite Consumers Union throughout this article and most appropriately as Consumers Reports, at the time, was probably the most incisive and objective source of automobile evaluations, unlike the publication today. If consumers today had something equivalent to educate themselves before purchasing an automobile, they might make better decisions and we would not see the self-deceptive results of their ignorance.
Okay, riddle me this – I heard on and off for years that, at least up until the mid-late 60s, Buicks and Cadillacs were supposedly better built than Chevrolet and Pontiac (I hear Olds on both sides of the equation.) This article seems to bear it out, but CU/CR had some interesting bugaboos that certainly had a different focus than the regular car rags, but also sometimes focused on some frankly weird shit. Is there any proof to this? You clearly didn’t get any more flash – and maybe less – than a well equipped model further down the Sloan ladder, but I get the impression that, if nothing else, the higher end marques at least had a little more care spent on their assembly.
To an extent, yeah. There were a couple parts to that. One was that both Buick and Cadillac production volume was smaller; Cadillac had maxed out their existing capacity, while Buick was still well below its ’50s peak. For a while in the ’50s, Buick had been up to almost three-quarters of a million cars; in the early ’60s, their full-size car production was about one-third of that. The second part is that Buick general manager Ed Rollert was very aware that quality had slipped in the latter ’50s, that buyers knew it had slipped and got spooked, and that he’d been brought in to clean things up. So, the division knew that it needed to try harder, and for the most part they did. Buick’s repair record was about average, based on the Consumer Reports data, but their build quality was generally quite good.
The other part is that Chevrolet quality was slipping during this period. There were probably a couple reasons for that, including the fact that they were building an absolutely staggering number of cars, but the quality people had come to expect from a Chevrolet was not there anymore, AND their repair record was getting worse and worse. From this point into the early ’70s, the Consumer Reports repair data for the full-size Chevrolets is just full of black circles, significantly worse than average.
Pontiac is a separate question. The Consumer Reports repair frequency records for this period and the early ’70s are generally average, but Consumer Guide, which started gathering their own data in the ’70s, found Pontiac noticeably worse than Oldsmobile or Buick in many lines.
The fact that a 3-speed automatic was an extra-cost option is yet another sign of GM’s arrogance in this time period. I’m not saying that GM’s various 2-speed automatic transmissions were garbage, but on mid-priced cars, they were less than what the competition offered.
It wasn’t that 3-speed automatic was an extra-cost option necessarily, but that it often wasn’t an option at all. Buyers were completely out of luck in the A-body lines, or with a big Chevrolet with a small block V-8, or a Jetstar 88, or the Chevy II, etc. What GM divisions charged for Turbo Hydra-Matic wasn’t out of line with what other automakers charged for 3-speed auto, but you often couldn’t get it at all, and it took three more years (give or take) to come up with the medium-duty TH350 to replace Super Turbine 300 and Powerglide. Given that Chrysler had dropped their last 2-speed automatic in 1961, that was pretty shocking.
Someone with funds likely ordered this well, optioned, not at all, ostentatious, ride. It has quite a bit a nice. Cost less than they likely could have spent.
“…substituting the 3-speed automatic really only cost you an extra $31.57 — well worth it, since the 3-speed switch-pitch TH400 was a crisp, durable, refined transmission…”
Would a small-block car have gotten the switch-pitch torque converter in the TH400/Super Turbine 400? MOSTLY (if not completely) the switch-pitch went with big-block Olds, Buick, and of course Cadillacs from ’65 to ’67. Small-block cars tended to get the standard (non-switch-pitch) torque converter.
Chevy didn’t get a switch-pitch at all, even with the Mark IV big-blocks, I can’t remember if Pontiac got one.
The engines that needed it most (lower-torque producing small-blocks and six-poppers) were denied access to the switch-pitch. The switch-pitch in the TH400 was a high-or-low stall unit, unlike the continually-variable unit in some earlier Buick transmissions. There’s a switch-pitch converter in my ’66 Toronado (TH425, the front-wheel-drive version of the TH400) with a Bruce Roe electronic controller replacing the crude electric switch assembly.
The small block Buicks did get the Switch-Pitch, even in the 2-speed ST300. It was a good move by Buick!
$4k seemed to be the sweet spot for a nicely equipped medium price big car in the mid 60s. Part of that was expensive options like air conditioning, which was becoming a must-have for many middle class folks of that time.
The wrinkles in the door panels of this car don’t reflect well on Buick quality. That said, this was a nice car. Not nice enough for me to forgo a 66 Newport with a 383/TF, but nice enough for most of America that had become leery of Mopar quality.
Who knew that a strip speedometer could be designed to NOT scrunch together the all-important 40-80 mph indications? Certainly not Ford in the early 70s that crammed together these numbers at the center and created so much space between 0-10 and 110-120 mph that they added the absurd 5 and 115 mph indications to fill the huge gaps at the ends.