(first posted 7/21/2016) As we continue our slo-mo four door hardtop jag, it is time to move from some of the early versions to this body style’s heyday. By 1961 the four door hardtop was here to stay. And at Buick, it was available to every Buick buyer – unless that Buick buyer cheaped out and bought a compact Special, but that is another topic for another day. But for the Buick buyer looking at the high end Electra, he got the choice of two, count ’em, TWO four door hardtops.
General Motors was indeed at the peak of its size and influence in 1961. Aside from all the work GM was doing to bring out four new compacts in 1960-61, its full sized line was all-new as well. Has any auto maker offered two separate and distinct four door hardtops in a given model line since the General Motors C body of 1961-64?
Everyone of a certain age remembers the “six window” four door hardtops on Buick Electra, Olds 98 and on Cadillac for 1961, a style that would stick around for all three of those Divisions through 1964. I know that those are the ones that pop into my brain’s illustrator when these cars come to mind.
Frankly, I had forgotten about the version exemplified by this car, an update of the “flying wing” roof so well known from the 1959-60 GM cars. The flying wing had been the four door hardtop body that had been shared by all five Divisions for that two-year styling cycle. For eons, General Motors had been set up so that its five car Divisions shared three unique body structures. The A body had traditionally been used by Chevrolet and Pontiac. The B body was for standard Oldsmobile and Buick, and the C body was for Cadillac, and the top-end Olds Ninety-Eight and Buick Roadmaster models. This hierarchy was abandoned during the crash program to offer a new 1959 line. The lack of time from concept to showroom necessitated all five Divisions to use the same basic body structure. Cadillac did get a six window version of its hardtop sedan, which was shared with the Sixty Special and even with the Buick Electra 225.
But 1961 would see at least a partial return to normalcy, with a new B body (that had Chevrolet and Pontiac sharing structures with the regular Olds and Buick). The new C body occupied its traditional spot in the lineup, serving only the top Olds and Buick models along with Cadillac. And for the first time ever, all three of them would have two separate and distinct four door hardtop bodies.
And yes, I am ignoring Cadillac’s Fleetwood Sixty Special which featured a third version that was not shared with any other model.
I have always found the 1961 Buick to be a fascinating car, and not just because of its roof styling. Paul Niedermeyer has gone into some depth discussing the way this car marked the transition between the Harley Earl and Bill Mitchell eras of General Motors styling. The ’61 gives us the final shadows of Earl’s confident flamboyance before Mitchell’s curvaceous elegance took us into the 1970s. Unlike, say, the 1967 Camaro, which gives us a pleasing shape to look at but without many eye-catching details, this car is almost nothing but eye-catching details. The pointed front fenders, the deep cove in the rear and the uniquely-shaped vent windows give this car a lot of things to look at. Although a big improvement from the 1958 Buick, this is no ’61 Continental. Let’s call this clean and restrained styling done the Harley Earl way. With glass. Lots and lots of glass.
It is not as though the roof concept for this car was an unusual one for its time. In a futile search for developmental drawings or models of the ’61 Buick, I came across a couple of proposals from the competition from right around this same period. The Ford Quicksilver (top, which was predictive of the 1960 Ford) and a color drawing by Chrysler’s John Samsen for a possible 1961 DeSoto show that designers of the late 1950s were intrigued by a relatively upright C pillar that was thin with a slight taper, coupled with a deeply curved rear window. This sort of roof (even without GM’s flying wing feature) would prove to be a fad with a very short shelf life.
The jet-age roofline of the 1961 Electra 4 door hardtop would disappear after this single year. Was there a reason that buyers chose the six window version (which Buick called the Riviera Sedan in 1961) by a nearly two-to-one margin over this one, which was simply called the “four door hardtop”? This model was featured on the cover of the ’61 Buick brochure, but then got virtually no publicity from then on.
Clockwise from top left: LeSabre 4 door sedan, Electra 4 door sedan, Electra 4 door hardtop, Electra 225 Riviera sedan.
And the completely different LeSabre 4 door hardtop.
I find it odd that the flying wing four door hardtop roof (found only on the Electra) looks so much like the sedan roof of the cheaper LeSabre – even though the LeSabre’s four door hardtop was different altogether. But strangely, the Electra sedan mimicked the roofline of the more expensive Electra 225 Riviera hardtop. Then as now, if you are going to spend the money for a high end car, you might as well be sure that your friends and relatives notice. An Electra that looked like a LeSabre (or a Corvair, for that matter) and a LeSabre that looked like an Electra made for one of the more nonsensical body style alignments in the General’s history. But I suppose that this is the kind of thing that happens during that period where the arc of the outgoing styling chief intersects with the arc of his incoming successor. Transition can be a messy thing.
Or perhaps Buick’s sales people and the buying public all knew that modern styles favored the elegant blind-quarter roof treatment of the 1961 Continental and Thunderbird. Whatever might be said of this car’s roof styling (and my own opinion is that it is not executed as well as the 1959-60 version), we must admit that styling trends were leaving it behind, in one of the few times before the 1980s that General Motors was the dictatee rather than the dictator of a new styling trend.
The five years from 1958 to 1963 showed an uncharacteristic amount of flux in Buick’s model names. 1959 was the year that Buick dropped well known names that went back to the 1930s in favor of LeSabre, Invicta and Electra. And in case the Electra was not enough for you, there was the Electra 225, which carried an additional five inches in length (all aft of the passenger compartment). By 1961, that distinction was gone, and the only difference between an Electra and an Electra 225 was a more luxurious interior and some additional brightwork outside, most notably on the lower rear quarters. And, of course, a completely different style for the four door hardtop.
By 1962 the regular Electra was history, leaving the Electra 225 as the sole C body Buick. Also, the top Buick would remain a car with two distinct four door hardtops. However, the four window style that replaced this ’61’s flying wing would be completely new. Bill Mitchell’s clean and modern roofline, the kind of roof that every modern luxury car should have, effectively wiped the last trace of the 1950s out of the biggest Buick. The buying public must have liked the new look, because the new four window version sold slightly ahead of the six window style for 1962, before taking a roughly two-to-one sales lead in 1963-64.
Beyond this car’s unique body, there were other interesting things going on at Buick in 1961, not least of which was the absence of the torque tube drive, which had been integral to Buick drivetrains since the days when Walter Chrysler was running the place. For those curious, he left in 1919. Also gone was the traditional frame, replaced by the X Frame that had been a mainstay at Chevrolet and Cadillac since the late 1950s. Interestingly, Buick was the only one of the BOP Divisions to use the X frame in 1961-64, choosing to adopt it just as Pontiac went back to a more traditional design with full side rails.
Buick also continued its interesting practice of naming its “nailhead” V8 engines for their rated torque output rather than their displacement. Both Electra and Electra 225 boasted Buick’s top powerplant – the “Wildcat 445”. This engine was a 401 cubic inch (6.6 L) four barrel carbureted V8 that converted (lots of) premium fuel into 325 horsepower and – you guessed it – 445 foot pounds of torque. And of course, it would not be a Buick without some version of the famous Dynaflow transmission. Called just “Turbine Drive”, this was the final version of the Dynaflow concept, which went back to the late 1940s as Buick’s first fully automatic transmission. “Turbine Drive” must have seemed quite ordinary after being a “Twin Turbine” in 1959 and replaced by the Super Turbine 400 in 1964. I suppose this was fitting for a car that kept one foot firmly in the 1950s while the other was stepping into the ’60s.
This particular car has been displayed several time at a local show I have visited. There has been something about it that has caused me to take pictures of it more than once. I could tell that this Desert Fawn (what kind of fawn lives in the desert?) and Arctic White example was beautifully original, which makes it my favorite flavor of old car. This Electra’s wonderful condition alone makes it worthy of attention. What I did not know at the time was that this was one of 8,978 Electra flying wing four door hardtops built that year. In fact, when remembering these pictures in the back of my mind, I had recalled this car as one of the vastly more common Electra 225s. I was all ready to write about these being the only four door hardtop done in a six window style instead of the ubiquitous four window style, until a fresh look at the pictures required me to completely change the focus of the piece.
What remains is that from 1961 through 1964, the person in the market for one of the big C body cars from General Motors got the choice of two separate and distinct four door hardtops. But within that short era, the 1961 model stands alone for its attempt to bring the glassy exuberance of 1959’s styling language into the era known for John F. Kennedy and the Lincoln Continental. The attempt clearly failed, and that this style was replaced so quickly probably tells us more about the car’s parentage than anything else. Even on his way out the door, Harley Earl could still make things interesting.
Further Reading:
1961 Buick LeSabre Two Door Hardtop (Paul Niedermeyer)
1961 Buick LeSabre Four Door Sedan (Richard Bennett)
1956 Buick Century Riviera Sedan (Paul Niedermeyer)
1956 Oldsmobile Super 88 Holiday Sedan (J P Cavanaugh)
1956 Ford Fairlane Victoria Sedan (J P Cavanaugh)
General Motors X Frames (Paul Niedermeyer)
Six please. Great article; making the complex make sense.
It’s not even 5 am and I’ve already learned something new today.
Perhaps I’m running against the market grain of the time, but I prefer the four-window version. It’s just an amazing thought GM had enough resources to tool up for such distinctly different rooflines on the same car – or to offer two lengths of the same car, as the Electra and Electra 225. Different times.
I think I prefer the four-window too, but that’s probably related to that black beauty on the cover of the brochure. With the exception of the Cadillac, I prefer all the ’61s to the ’60s. They just look so much trimmer to me, yet you don’t see too many of them on the road or at shows.
The discontinuation of the torque tube must have made thousands of Buick technicians cheer and throw their hats in the air. Virtually every driveline job must have become thirty times easier from that point on.
In my opinion and experience torque tube drives require a lot less repairs or maintenance than open drive lines. The drive line and U joints.or later constant velocity joints are not exposed to dust, water, tar, mud, rocks, gravel or road salt to degrade them or causing them to out of balance. It is a sealed drive train and the tube also takes a lot of wear stresses that are forced upon U joints causing them to fail. Never ever seen or heard of a bent drive line in a torque tube, lots of them on open drivelines. Sure to change the clutch or repair the transmission or rear end takes a little extra time and effort but it is not the horror story most make it out to be today. Amc had torque tube drive also until 1967 except for the American. I had to drop and reinstall the torque tube on my ’63 Rambler Classic once and did not find it too onerous or difficult and I did it without any help. .
So have I. I’d rather pull four bolts and have the driveshaft out in two minutes.
Here’s a case where a torque tube lost an argument with a speed bump:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/coal-capsule/coal-1983-porsche-928s-no-such-thing-as-a-cheap-porsche/
This article does make good reading and learning about the Electra 225 , I am so proud to own one and yes i do own one, Artic white in color with 6 windows , 401cid Nail Head 445 Wildcat with only 26,500 miles on the Odometer all original , all numbers match out of 10 it his a 10 it surely turns heads when i drive it and popular to look at at car shows good curious onlookers looks at it and admire my car , my Electra 225 was in storage in a garage for 28 years when i attempted to start it the motor turned immediately . Previous owner started the car once a week for 28 years believe it or not well preserved also. GREAT GARAGE FIND Frenchie
The 1959 Electra 225 was more or less a continuation of the 1958 Limited.
But with about 30% less chrome, and 100% less hashmarks.
Given the amount of chrome on the ’59, that’s really saying something.
Even as a little kid I figured out that the lavish chromey decorations on all GM cars in 1958 was to make up for all of them – even the all new Chevys and Pontiacs – being heavy, fat and rounded looking compared to the modernistic lithe looking cars that came out the year before from Ford and Chrysler. And that the Buick Limited was only tasteful compared to rest of the line, which were the chromiest cars ever.
JP, Enjoyable morning read. The different body configurations are as confusing today as they were when new; thank you for a guide in understanding what was going on.
As a lowly high school burger flipper I often “volunteered” to take the boss’s black 1962 Electra 225 six window home for a good wash inside and out.
It was then, and remains so now in my memory, a dramatically sensual car, very quiet, very powerful, very solid. It made my father’s 1961 Ventura feel light and low end. Getting in that Buick and shutting the vault-like door ended all external sound. The engine was hushed, the transmission was smooth, and it felt fast.
I know, rose colored glasses syndrome is strong here.
Thanks for the memories.
I’ll take either of the 4 window versions over the 6.
That C pillar, and especially the rear vent window are just too geometric for the otherwise curved body.
The LeSabre version may actually be my favorite of the bunch.
Unlike the other posters here, I kind of like the 6 windows roofline, though of all the 61 GM full-sized cars the Buick is the best looking with that 4 window roofline.
Buicks were never really on my “radar” until I went to boot camp and my best friend was a big Buick fan. His dream car was an Electra 225.
I like them both, though if you *made* me pick, I think I’d take the 6-window. But in either case it’s pretty fantastic. The ’61 is one of my favorite Buick shapes–I love the pointed front fenders and the complex curves of that rear bumper. Long, low, and 60’s jet age flamboyant without being over the top.
I miss this incarnation of GM; it’s probably just as well. They were so above their competition 55 years ago that the faux-pas of this era could be forgiven more easily than today.
I think I’m bookmarking this excellent piece. 4,739 is such a paltry sum. With so many rooflines between Buick’s larger cars, it perfectly mirrors that make’s heyday. I wish they would bring back the “Invicta” name, but I’m afraid of what it would be attached to.
“4,739 is such a paltry sum”
Yes, isn’t it? Fewer than 100 per state, if we were to distribute them evenly. That makes just about one for each of Indiana’s 92 counties, with maybe an extra one for Indianapolis and Fort Wayne. 🙂
I am another fan of “Invicta”. Although “Wildcat” that replaced it was not bad either.
For what its worth, my copy of the Standard Catalog shows Buick sold 8,978 copies of the Model 4739 Electra four door hardtop, and 13,719 Model 4829 Electra 225 (six window) four door hardtops. Buyers paid about a 10% premium for the six window car.
Doh! I had gone to the Team Buick website, and see that I mentally transposed the model number of the four door hardtop with its production. That model number, by the way, is very close to the production of the two door hardtop. I have fixed those references. Thank you for your proofreading services!
I did not catch that model number similarity. I was hunting the Invicta and LeSabre lines to see where 4,739 might fit for a production number, and nothing was quite an exact match.
Probably another Opel. What else? At least it`s a better name than “Cascada”.
I definitely prefer the 4-window. IMO the 6-window’s roof pressing should’ve been used as a two-door hardtop and would’ve been more modern and practical than the bubbletop and far less quickly dated than the humpy faux-convertible one.
In 1961, Buick could have used their “That’s not a Buick” ads to much greater effect than nowadays. Regardless of what they looked like they were always a sweet ride.
In those days though people definitely wanted to be seen in a Buick.
Buick projected quiet wealth. Now a Buick says: “The Chevy Dealer didn’t deserve my business!”
True in the US but Buick continues to be considered a luxury brand in China.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2016/01/20/thats-a-buick-in-china-unlike-the-u-s-theres-no-doubt/
Well ,at least in `61 Buick commercials wouldn`t have that annoying disco music that seems to be their signature song today.
Four door hardtop? Four windows, please (vent wings excepted). Same logic goes for two doors.
I must admit, though, that the C-pillar glass in my Impala comes in quite useful at times.
6-Window for me please. It’s simply classier and more dignified looking. There’s something about elongating the greenhouse that makes the whole car look longer and lower, also used to good effect in the ’65-’66 Chrysler 6-windows.
It’s also predictive of the Colonnades a decade later.
These Full size four door hardtops from the 60s are extremely popular at Stockholm cruise nights. I was amazed.
Seems like I’m in the minority, but I prefer the 6 window hardtop. Somehow in profile it just looks more formal and stately to me.
I like the 6 window too, and also the thicker C-pillars of the ’62 hardtops. These are really clean, nice-looking cars, miles ahead of their ’59-’60 predecessors.
Jim, as always a most enjoyable post. I would be thrilled to own any one of the cars pictured, but something about that Desert Fawn hardtop speaks to my soul. The whole GM lineup for 1961 exuded lightness and grace; it’s hard to believe that just 10 years later GM offered such ugly, bloated lumps across the board.
Put me in the camp for the 6 window, partly because the Electra 225 level trim on these cars works for me. The little trim vent or whatever it is at the end of the rear quarter, combined with the wheel covers that look a bit like road wheels, give the car a surprisingly sporty look. The ’61 Electra 225 was not really on my radar as a kid, but now it might be the most desired senior Buick in my imaginary garage.
The ’61 Buick seems light, tight and airy compared to the Buicks that came before them, and what things would evolve to again by 1964.
The six window look, whether sedan or hardtop, did provide a little style leadership in the market – Chrysler bought into it in ’65, only to see GM abandon it after ’64. Oh well, the ’65 Chrysler six window is a handsome car, and I’m glad they did it.
It is amazing that GM tooled for so many variants of rooflines for their standard line four door cars. I count 5 total at Buick, spread over volumes that were not that impressive. The best selling four door roofline was the LeSabre four door hardtop with 37,390 copies. The Invicta hardtop shared the LeSabre’s hardtop roofline. The base Electra four door hardtop roofline was the unicorn of ’61 Buick standard four door cars.
This muscle flexing at GM was nothing compared to what was to come – they were building well differentiated cars on three to six body/platforms per division by 1967. The explosion of platforms and bodies at GM between ’59 and ’67 is nothing short of amazing, and became a huge liability by the 1980s.
Four window. Always a big fan of Carl Renner’s “flying wing”, and this is in some ways the ultimate expression. It really suits the airy quality of these cars, and that rear window is something to behold. Just don’t break it! Can you imagine finding a replacement?
Buick had a 4 window and 6 window style for both 1959 and 1960 Electra 225’s.
Well, I learned something today too. I just looked this up, and you are completely right. The six window version was the Cadillac Sixty Special of 1959-60, which was also available in the Sixty Two and DeVille. Cadillac had not offered an actual pillared sedan since, what, 1955 or 56? Of course, Cadillac also got the four window version that shared its greenhouse with every other car GM made. As a Buick, the six window version was only offered as an Electra 225 (in addition to the four window flying wing version), and was not available in the Olds Ninety Eight line. Good catch!
The 1959-1960 Eldorado Brougham had this 1961 6 window style.
The 1956 Fleetwood Sixty Special was still a pillared sedan. The 1957 was a hardtop. The 1958 Fleetwood 60 has a quarter window in the rear door. I’m not sure if this makes it a 6 window or not.
We’ve all heard the story of how GM quickly redesigned their 1959 models and the ‘revolt’ of the styling dept.
But, at what point did GM decide “fins are out” and chop them off their ’61 prototypes? Caddy still had them, but were shrinking.
This was when there were annual changes. The 1960 Oldsmobile and Pontiac’s were finless. The Chevrolet phased the gull wings out by 1961, although there is a faint trace left. Buick changed styling completely for 1961. My guess is that the 1959 fins were perceived as a bad idea after they went into production. Tail fins were a late 50’s style as the jet age was beginning. Cadillac had the tail light fin from about 1949 through 1957, so Cadillac did not seem concerned about backing away from tail fins completely.
Good question. We should note that only Cadillac really went all-in on fins. By 1960 models, whatever fins the other Divisions were wearing were really not focal points of the designs. I guess this is one area where Harley Earl really did exercise restraint.
The Cadillac studio seriously considered lopping the fins off the 1959 Eldorado Brougham. I think there was a full-size clay, or one side of one, that was completely finless. Obviously, the Brougham was a limited-production model, but it was also a bellwether, so that gives you some clue where they were at conceptually.
GM designers were generally very conscious of the need to move on once some theme became passé, although in the case of Cadillac, Earl and Mitchell were both also very careful not to change things too quickly, so as to maintain stylistic continuity. That was a big consideration with regard to resale value, so it didn’t do to be hasty.
The six window is a more harmonious, “tied together” look, but I prefer the four window because it’s a bit of an oddball. And especially in the 1961 cars the wilder the better.
The 4 window hardtop roof is fabulous but looks much more at home on the ’59. These are much crisper cars and that 6 window hardtop roof suits them so much more.
Here is a scan from the June 1998 of Collectible Automobile that has some of the design proposals for the 1961 Buick. While some are crazy with thinking that is more ’59 than anything for the 1960s, the overall themes are becoming clear. I think the long shot in the 3rd row is especially interesting, showing the hardtop sedan roofline styling proposals for each GM division.
For reference, from the same issue, here’s what was in the studios for the 1962 Buicks.
Very enlightening pictures. These show just how late the Thunderbird/Continental style roof came into the picture. That must have been a real rush job, because pretty much the rest of the 62 styling seems to have been done with 1961-style roofs in mind.
Turbine Drive was still functionally the same as Twin Turbine — two turbines, two stators, turbine gearset. The main difference was that it had a shorter case this year. I assume they wanted to disassociate a pretty good transmission from its half-baked triple-turbine cousin (which was gone by this time), and from earlier, slushier Dynaflows. The Special’s automatic, which was mechanically very different, was “Dual-Path Turbine Drive.” Neither had any real relationship with the later Super Turbine 400 (TH400) beyond being sold by Buick.
To address a common mechanical misconception, the perimeter frame Pontiac and other GM B-bodies adopted in 1964–65 was not a “more traditional” frame. In the sense I think most people assume, the X-frame was considerably more traditional in function (if not arrangement), insofar as it was among the last of the old-style self-supporting chassis frames used for passenger cars. A perimeter frame is sort of like taking the front and rear subframes from a unit-body vehicle and connecting them with side rails; it’s not really load-bearing. That was a fairly new concept at the time, not a retrenchment in the old ways.
The flying wing roof that worked so well on all the ’59 GM cars and ’60 Corvair just looks awkward on the ’61’s. As stated in the article, ’61 was a transition year of styling. On the Chevy sedans, the same flying wing theme looks even worse. A ’61 Belair 2dr sedan is shown as an example.
In the upmarket cars, I have always liked the six window body, and the buying public agreed.
I really like the flying wing on the 61 Chevy.
Hubba, I agree. Especially if the flying wing 61 Chevy is a Biscayne with a 409 engine, radio delete, and a cue ball topped four speed.
I still want a heater in it; let’s not go too crazy.
GM gave you so many choices back in 1961. Not only were there the 4 and 6 window 4 dr. hardtops shown here, but you could get a shorter rear deck Cadillac (the Park Avenue), a 2 door Impala sedan, 2 and 4 door Belair Hardtops and 2 door Olds 88 and Buick LeSabre sedans. Not to mention dozens of a la carte options to make your ride even more unique.
Always loved the 1961 GM line, especially the 2 dr. bubbletops. Trimmer and less gaudy than the ’59-’60’s, they helped make GM the behemoth it became during the sixties. Loved the windshield and the way the vent windows curved into the design. Too bad it had a short shelf life as things got more formal by 1963.
The featured Buick is awesome. Confident, professional and understated, driven by those with similar personality characteristics who had little use for the ostentatiousness of a Cadillac.
4 windows or 6 window, that is the question. I might be in the minority, but IMHO the 6 windows just look so much bigger than the 4 windows, even if they are the same size. However, if somebody showed me a 4 window 61-64, I wouldn`t refuse it.
This article does a very good job of laying out the different four-door hardtop rooflines GM used during this era. The amount of money GM spent to differentiate on different rooflines seems amazing, particularly when we live in an era when car makers only offer us two or three interior color choices!
I like the six-window roofline used on the Electra 225 and Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight, although my favorite of the entire bunch is the four-door hardtop roofline used on the less expensive B-body LeSabre and Eighty-Eight.
JP: thanks for the wonderful article. For me the 61 Buick [and Special] was the peak of it’s styling: lean, interesting details, fantastic visibility.
Aside from the 63-65 Riviera, I can’t think of a Buick that hits so many of the high points in one car [or “cars” when one includes the 61 Special { and only the 61. Buick messed with the tail lights on the 62 and the grille as well. Not an improvement } ].
Also, JP: thanks for including so many great ads and pictures. This article was a real treat and very informative.
One side says 6 window for all out upper crust appeal. My practical side says: sedan, which if I had been a buyer back then, I would have chosen. Sadly, if I had a million, I would be the same way.
The reason for GM’s downfall can be seen here – 5 divisions all selling basically the same car. The biggest differences were in the amount of chrome, but mechanically they are all OHV cast iron V-8s with torque-converter automatic and live rear axle mounted on a steel frame. In the 1930s, the technology differences between divisions was also very similar, but at least the Caddies and Buicks were substantially larger than the Chevys, and had smoother engines with more power, but by the 1960s a 409 Chevy Impala had more than enough room for 6 people and arguably a better more powerful engine than a Cadillac DeVille. No doubt this was a very profitable strategy, but I have to wonder how the Germans and Japanese would have done in the States if GM management had forced their divisions to differentiate more – Chevy builds small cheap cars to compete with VW/Toyota, Pontiac makes front-wheel drive based performance vehicles to compete with Acura, Lexus ES, Olds builds rear-drive moderate sized technically sophisticated competitors to BMW/smaller Benz, Buick takes the role of Cadillac to compete with Lincoln (i.e. unsophisticated large velvet lounges), Cadillac makes sophisticated moderate/large cars to take on top-line Benz/Bentley/Rolls.
I have a 4 door ’61 Electra with a B pillar. All original with matching #s and only 73k miles. I have seen very few pictures of a car like mine, meaning with the B pillar. I’m in love with everything about this sweet ride. Other than this one in reference, I have not yet seen another like it for sale. All the ones I see for sale are mostly convertibles, or four doors with just the A and C pillars. Any knowledge of how many were made?
Great article and comments, just came across.
Always wondered what 4-door Electra would have looked like in bubble top style so did quick work up. Started with Invicta coupe, changed to 4 door then added 3 inches to rear door and rear overhang to get to Electra dimensions. Roof lengthened 6 inches, C-pillar widened 3 inches. Added rear vent windows and an extra front fender porthole.
I like the continuation of rounded forms into the rear roof.
I believe the rear seat was set further back for more legroom in the 6 window, which would explain some of their popularity. I know that was true for the pillared sedans later in the 60s.
The four-window cantilever design works far better on the ’59-60 than on the ’61. I think the problem is the body color paint on the C pillar and no connection between the curved rear window and the rear side windows in the doors. On the 59/60 there’s only a thin chrome strip separating the two, which makes the cantilever effect work much better. OTOH, the 6-window design looks a bit odd when all the windows are rolled down, leaving a large opening except for that little triangular window that doesn’t roll down.
I prefer the six window roof style, it just looks nicer than the four window. However I never was a fan of the ‘point’ on the front end of the car. The cleaned up front and rear styling on the 62 make them look much cleaner and easier on the eye.
GM embraced the “Space Age” styling of which the four window four door hardtop was one of the best examples with the expansive wrap around rear glass. But the buying public didn’t go along, making those 59-60 models examples of lower production. I think GM had the production engineering well in place for the 61 models so they couldn’t reverse course, but by ’62 they were able to back off, reasoning that the “Space Age” look just wasn’t popular. I’ve always considered the four windows with the huge wrap around back light a spectacular look, those are my favorite models.
I save few auto pics to my hard drive, these days, but this ’61 made the cut. I can’t say where I found it, because I don’t recall. Looking at it now, Dan Cluley’s remark above, about the rear quarter window and C-pillar being too geometric for the rest of the car, rings true. I was already going to mention that the disconnect between the front vent window and that rear lite (didn’t somebody say it could be moved, if not lowered, a while back ?) is troubling.
On the other hand . . . the angle of the C pillar is echoed effectively at the rear of both wheel openings. That counts for something, I think.
This example sports period-incorrect wide whitewalls that nevertheless add something–but I wouldn’t have added the chrome surround to the fuel filler door. So, not quite stock in any event. Nice in black, though; very white tie and tails ?
I love both roof lines. The six window is definitely more formal looking, and the 4 window more sporty. I’m 1960 Ford also had two different rooflines Fairlane with big glass and Galaxie with the the Thunderbird style formal roof.
I prefer the 6 window 225 – it looks more crisp and modern, and I think the 61 is the only year in the 61-64 generation where the 6 window roofline really works. For 62-64, the 4 window gets the nod in my eyes and the 6 window seems out of place with the stylistic revisions to the lower body. I’m more than a bit biased, though, since I own a 61 Electra 225 like the one my parents had throughout the 60s – theirs was a beautiful black and mine is desert fawn