(first posted 10/16/2014) You’d be forgiven for thinking this actually is a full-sized Buick. Although Buick jumped whole-heartedly into the compact ring in 1961, it didn’t take long for them to realize that what Americans really wanted in a small Buick coupe was a not-so-small Buick coupe. So within just six years, the little 1961 Special grew into the biggest “mid-sized” GM coupe ever. And its designers did everything to make it look even bigger yet. The slightly littler big car.
image: oldparkedcars.com
The 1962 Skylark coupe was 188.4″ long, stretched on a fairly long 112″ wheelbase with quite short overhangs, and carried much of the design cues of the big Buicks. But nobody was fooled; these were compacts in the eyes of Buick buyers, and they didn’t exactly set the sales charts on fire.
The little car experiment was over after three years, and in 1964, Buick joined the rest of the GM gang (except Cadillac) with substantially larger small cars, or mid-sizers. They now rode on a 115″ wheelbase, the same as a full size Chevy back in the mid fifties, but a good eight inches longer, at 203.5″ overall.
The re-skin for 1966-1967 added a couple of more inches, for a grand total of 205. That’s three more than the current Cadillac XTS, and about the same as the LWB versions of the top-end European and Lexus luxury-liners. Mid sized? Hmmm. And of course, the fender skirts added to the ’67 only added to the impression of length. As well as mimicking the full-size Buick’s love of those things.
Yes, the big Buicks for 1967 sported a new design direction with their down-swept side character line, that accentuated the bigger-then-ever rear hips. This Wildcat coupe measured a healthy 220″, to keep a bit of distance from the pretender Skylark.
Before somebody busts me, let me qualify the line in the opening paragraph about the ’67 being the “the biggest “mid-sized” GM coupe ever’, yes, the Colonnade coupe were actually four inches longer, but that was all in the mandated five mile bumpers. And the Colonnades sat on the smaller 112″ wheelbase, and didn’t try quite so hard to look extra long (just extra wide).
The most distinctive design element on these cars was of course the “tunnel-back” roof, cribbed from a 1964 racing Ferrari GTO and the Dino Berlinetta Especiale of 1965. And of course with some more seminal inspiration from Pininfarina’s seminal 1955 Florida. It was a short-lived phenomenon, passed over to Dodge with its 1968 Charger the same year GM ditched it already.
Buick’s love of prominent rear hips was further accentuated in their 1968 Skylark coupe, which was shorter than the ’67, at a mere 200″ overall, riding on the new 112″ coupe-exclusive wheelbase. By mine (and most folk’s reckoning), the Buick was the weakest design of these new GM ’68 A-Body coupes.
Well, the prominent down-ward-sweeping side spear was a Buick trademark, going back to the 1951.
But beginning with the 1953 Skylark convertible, Buick couldn’t seem to decide whether that distinctive sweep worked better with a low rear wheel opening, or a full one, like on this ’57. Although I’m hardly a fan of fender skirts, this one isn’t working so well for me. How about a happy medium?
The ’67 Skylark’s fender skirts were exclusive to that year only; the ’66 was devoid of them. This is the Skylark GS400 version, but even the most gentrified Skylark coupe was showing its rear legs in 1966.
Speaking of legs and such, the 1967 Buick brochures were legendary, and included a host of (mostly) lesser stars to add their luster to the stars of Buick’s line-up. And who is gracing the Skylark? Dolores Wettach, a Swiss born model and minor star who later married baseball great Ted Williams. There’s a few racier pictures of her at Google Images.
What’s this recurring affinity of the ’67 Skylark, big hips and attractive women? Maybe Dolores’ granddaughter goes to the U of O? Ok, I was forced to use this shot that was spoiled by this intruder only because my camera flubbed the focus on the same shot without her. And no, she doesn’t mind.
We’ve obsessed way too much on this Skylark’s length, hips and women here, and ignored this particular car’s story, which is a good one. The owner, who works in the restaurant (I assume), came out and shared it with me, before he drove off in it.
It had been his dad’s daily driver, acquired as a gift from the owner of the shop where he was a mechanic. I’m not sure how old the car was then, but the dad was 24 at the time. And when his son turned 24, he gifted it to him. And now it’s his daily driver, dripping with memories, as well as a vintage portable radio player.
Given this car’s history, let’s assume the odometer has turned over at least once. The shift quadrant gives this away as a two-speed automatic, but not the Powerglide, as is so often but erroneously assumed. It’s Buick’s Super Turbine 300, with a Switch-Pitch (variable) stator that gave two different torque multiplication ratios; 1.8:1 under low-medium throttle settings, and a more aggressive 2.45:1 (and higher under stall speed) at throttle settings of 2/3 or higher.
Providing the input torque to the Super Turbine is Buick’s 300 CID (4923cc) V8, here in two-barrel form which was rated at 210 (gross) hp @440 rpm. The 300, and the larger 340 version, was the replacement to the 215 CID aluminum V8, which was too troublesome and would be sold off to Rover. The 300/340 were iron engines, but shared many architectural similarities with the aluminum 215. The fact that the Rover was eventually bored and stroked to 5 liters (304.9 CID) hints at the potential for displacement increases in this block, iron or aluminum. Buick’s final version had 350 CID (5.7 L), and was built until 1980.
And of course, this engine also spawned the Buick V6; this 300 V8 and the 225 CID version of the V6 share identical bore and stroke. For that matter, since the V6 came out first in mid-year 1961, we could rightfully say that the small-block Buick V8 is really a V6 with two more cylinders added.
Obviously this Skylark has seen some serious use over the decades, but still manages to convey a bit of the Buick spirit in its vinyl-wrapped interior. Positively spartan for today’s standards, but about as nice as one could get in a mid-sized car. Why didn’t Cadillac use this platform for a Seville in the sixties? Hmmm.
But hey, it has a split front seat back with a wide armrest! That was pretty hot stuff in 1966, as a date-friendly alternative to genuine buckets. I had a Magnavox radio just like that, and I can hear it playing Crimson and Clover, over and over….
And the Skylark has a million dollar smile; no wonder beautiful women were (and still are) attracted to it. Confident, composed, enthusiastic, optimistic; well, it was 1967, after all. And most of all, sunny.
Hey, where did the fog and clouds suddenly go to? That’s the magic of a ’67 Skylark; big on the outside, little on the inside, and guaranteed to bring out the sunshine and pretty women. Who can argue with that?
Sometimes an older mid size looks just mid size especially by comparing to the then full size but if next to a current biggest sedan ( Lincoln MKS, Cadilllac XTS, or other bigger European cars ) the modern full size looks quite tiny and weird ( especially when cars get narrow and taller. Closer to milk van I think )
However an ’80s Lincoln Continental with 5.0 V8 does appear to be kinda small in front of a current Camry though, and it’s more similar to an MKZ in size.
My Plymouth Volare never looks big in any ways, but in the parking lot it appears to be so giant comparing a lot of older Ford Fusions/ then MKZ and Cadillac CTS, and maybe a Buick Lucerne. I always wonder why.
My Fairmont look positively tiny compared to many modern cars. Go figure 🙂 .
The grille and lights look a lot like an FD Vauxhall Victor.
Gem, I think the FD looks better: scaled up it would have been an awesome car.
Wonder who styled it?
It was with the 3.3 6 cylinder Cresta engine and sold as the Ventora in the UK.I think Bryce had one.
Leo Pruneau who later went to Holden.
https://www.midlandexpress.com.au/chasing-cars-leo-pruneaus-designs-come-to-life-in-iconic-australian-wheels/
Why didn’t Cadillac use this as a platform for a late 60s Seville? Because in the 60s GM and Cadillac still believed “bigger is better”. The fact that this Buick “had to grow” to find a sizeable market suggests Caddy’s philosophy was correct for the 60s.
I actually like these cars (as well as the Colonnade models), but until a very conservative uncle started to buy Skylark coupes, they just weren’t on my radar.
Finally, fender skirts or no fender skirts? No fender skirts. And one thing that drove me away from Buick? Their slavish “devotion” to that signature side sweep and semi-covered wheels/skirts that reached it’s depths with the final, smallish, FWD Skylarks.
I never blame wine for anything
Maybe Paul shared a couple of bottles with that pretty brunette…
I think the ’67 may be the best of the pre ’70 Skylarks. The ’61-’62s are sharp, but just not quite big enough to be “Real Buicks” ’63-’66 are just a little too bland, and while the skirts and sweep looks good on the big cars, the proportions are just a little off on the ’68-’69 Skylarks.
But then I like the ’58s, so what do I know? 😉
I have to agree about the proportions of the 1968-69. I think the style worked well on full size models but not much on the mid-sizers. The 1968-69 Sportwagon, because of it’s extra 8″ in wheelbase and because of it’s different rear design did look better.
1968 is also the year when the previous year’s Special was replaced by the Special Deluxe, the Special Deluxe was replaced by the Skylark and the Skylark by the Skylark Custom… So only the Skylark Custom got the fender skirts that year. But even without the skirts (they were also gone on the Skylark Custom in 1969) the bodies had strange proportions. The 1970 restyle was a major improvement on the Skylark and GS models. Strangely, the Riviera went in the opposite direction, and potential buyers noticed!
I love that “tunnel back” roofline. Very distinctive, although I’d imagine it doesn’t help with rear visibility.
I read through this rather quickly, but I didn’t notice any glaring mistakes. Wine can make it difficult to organize thoughts on paper, but it’s a risk I’m willing to take.
Wine primes the pump of creativity. Harder stuff creates a gusher – well, that’s what I’ve been told, anyway. 🙂
My grandmother (we called her Wowo) was the perfect example of how Buick hit the bullseye for their core target audience with this car. She was always part of a Buick family (she learned to drive in one in the nineteen-teens), and in the 1950s she lived with my great-grandmother, who always had a big Buick. No question, Wowo had definitely bought into the brand’s magic, but she always described the ones from the 1950s as “huge!” So, in 1964 when my great-grandmother was getting too old to drive, Wowo picked the Buick and her choice was the Skylark. Not too big, not too small, and all the major Buick virtues intact. That first ’64 was followed by a ’67, a 4-door hardtop version of this car. I don’t remember the 1967, but Wowo said it was “champagne” color with a black top. I’m guessing the color was either the tan like the photo car, or perhaps the lighter cream of the car in the brochure shot (that brochure is one of my favorites from the 1960s, with its crazy mix of people, photographs and illustrations). Wowo’s ’67 would have had that light cream colored vinyl interior, which was pretty nice for the era and the segment. Wowo kept Skylarking right through her next 1970, then went Century for ’73 and ’76. The mid-size Buick phenomenon came to a screeching halt with the ’79. Wowo simply couldn’t fathom the aeroback. Still, the brand had a great run with their mid-sizer, which I’m sure was nicely profitable and kept their core conservative clientele quite happy with their “Buickness,” Wowo included.
I never cared for the 1967 Skylark fender skirts. Those on the Electra 225 (and on that year’s Wildcat) looked better. Buick stopped to install fender skirts on the Wildcat and Skylark in 1969 and I think it was a good thing! They made the same error one more time in 1970 on the Rivera but that time, they noticed people didn’t like the styling and they made a smaller version available… After that, only the Electra kept using fender skirts and they were gone for good after 1976. Olds and Pontiac kept using them on some Parisienne/Bonneville and Ninety Eights for a few more years.
There’s one mid size 1967 Buick that has a longer (5″ longer) wheelbase than the Skylark. I also think it looks better as it lacks fender skirts. It’s the SportWagon!
I like the one Fernandel was driving in the French movie “L’Homme à la Buick”:
http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_75826-Buick-Sportwagon-1967.html
This one has the disc brake rallye wheels that Buick used on the 1967-68 mid-size models with front disc brakes. The 4 piston calipers didn’t fit behind the Buick chrome rims so Buick used Chevy rims with Buick emblems in their center caps (later, Chevrolet used two styles of 1967 Buick wheelcovers on some models, including the 1968 Corvette).
Full size cars also needed new chrome wheels to fit the 4 piston calipers, they were available just in mid-1967 (my 1967 Riviera GS with disc brakes has them). BTW while the SportWagon is just as narrow as other mid-size “A” bodies, it has a 1″ longer wheelbase than my 1967 Riviera.
I had nicknamed these “Skylark 225”, they sooo badly wanted to be an Electra.
The 1970 Riviera had 2 skirts, the full skirt and a small skirt for an open wheel look, but it still looked too droopy. Cool movie with the SportWagon in France.
Funny thing is that Buick did something like this again in 1989 when they introduced a Luxury Edition N-body Skylark with a full rear landau, heavy chrome rockers and whites and wires. My grandmother found it so cute she almost traded here LeSabre Limited in on one. It sort of looked like a baby Park Avenue Ultra.
Here’s one
I got a large 1990 Buick sales brochure when the last time I visited the GM pavillon at Epcot Center (I was 13 then) and the last pages featured a red Skylark “Luxury Edition”.
I had seen a few of those while in Florida I was shocked when I realized that these got out of the factory like that… I don’t recall seeing these around where I live (near Montreal in Canada) but I think they were available here too! They just didn’t sell!, The Gran Sport version of the 1989-90 was more popular here! That Luxury Editon reminds me the 1992 and newer LeSabres with an added vinyl top, oftenn fitted with those wire wheelcovers and Wildcat badges on the vinyl top that I saw in Florida. That just didn’t look right and thanks god we didn’t have these around to tarnish the Wildcat name!
About the 1970 Riviera skirts, they were added to the option list in mid-year as the sales were disastrous and people just didn’t like the new bloated look!
The 1970 Riviera is one of the few minor restyle that resulted in making a completely different-looking car but the result was quite bad! I just hate the large backglass and strange bumpers. I’m sure it would have sold much better if left completely unchanged from the previous year!
I agree, the ’70 is an abomination. The front looks no different from that year’s Skylark and in no way looks upscale. The only thing noteworthy about it is that is was the last GM product to use the X-frame.
The only thing I really like about the 1970 Rivy is that all of them a 370hp 455, regardless of trim or any other bs, but otherwise, its “down there” on my list of favorite Rivieras.
The Luxury Edition Sklyarks were really popular down here in Fla, go figure, right?
That Luxury Edition N-body Skylark somehow works.
You’d never mistake that for a Honda or Toyota. I like the colour though.
The late-60s GM mid-sizers were my all-time favorites, regardless of the logo. Although my absolute favorite was the Cutlass 4-4-2, I was especially fond of the 1968 Skylark coupe – “stripe cars” my buddy and I referred to them as! The nice, large round rear Buick logo side markers were a real touch of class.
Ironically, the Pontiacs were my least-favorite – Buicks just seemed cleaner-styled. Still, I’d have to go with Chevelle overall, but any of these would be more than welcome in my garage – pillarless, of course.
The ghost of Big Chief Pontiac casts a hex upon you!
“And no, she doesn’t mind” And neither do we 🙂
Very nice car and an ever better back story .
Some years (decades) back , my then 17 Y.O. Son came home with a gunmetal blue 1967 Buick GC Coupe with that wonderful ‘ Switch Pitch ‘ torque converter and a 340 4 BBL carby , that thing moved right along and he loved it and was flabbergasted when I told him it wasn’t a true full sized American car (he’d grown up in my pre war American and various European cars) .
Sadly , he didn’t like the fuel economy and so went off to Hondas and heavily modified VW’s (mostly Air Cooled) , he still likes smaller cars to this day .
For those who are not aware , that ‘ Switch Pitch ‘ tranny tore up the local drag strips back in the 1960’s .
-Nate
Yeah, the idea that this was a midsize car by contemporary American standards is pretty hard to absorb if you didn’t grow up with these cars.
He was born in 1979 and for some years I had a 1968 700 Series Malibu four door (think stripper Chevelle) ex Sacramento Metro Car ~ .
When he was 15 or so and bought his first Beetle I asked him if he remembered our old ” mid size” Malibu ~ he said ” ?! what ?! not mid size Pop , that thing was _HUGE_ ! I remember sliding around in that big back seat ” .
As you said , if you weren’t there , it is hard to comprehend .
me , I like to put on my car like a pair of gloves .
Why I’m not fond of the cherry Euro Spec. Mercedes 300TD – T Wagon I bought for SWMBO ~ it’s simply too darn BIG .
-Nate
Yes, but compared to the behemoths, they were mid-sized. When I see lengths like this, I think of the ’93 Bonneville “full-size” I owned that was 200 inches long.
Sixties ‘midsize’ = ‘as big as you’d want’ now.
If US intermediates had been sold in Australia back then instead of the biggies, they’d probably have done better. We got the ’62-’64 Fairlanes, then got our own version of the Fairlane from ’66 on. But neither GM nor Mopar sent us their intermediates, and we had to wait till ’72 for them to sell local cars that size.
Buick used variable pitch converters since 1955 on it’s Dynaflow and Flitghtpitch transmissions. In 1964, when they replaced the Dynaflow (later known as “Twin Turbine”) and the Dual Path Turbine Drive, the ST-300 got the feature but not the ST-400. That was corrected for 1965 models when the ST-400 got the switch pitch too. Unfortunately, Both transmissions lost the variable pitch for the 1968 model year.
I think Olds, Cadillac and Rolls Royce also used the variable pitch converters in their versions of the 400 in 1965-67 and Olds also used it in it’s “Jetaway” version of the ST-300 before 1968.
Switch-pitch is a neat feature in a way. The electromechanical switch that controls everything is so cool on the inside; it’s like a rollercoaster with connections. I had to disassemble mine to clean it because it stopped working–I guess 49 years will do that to a part.
I would, however, prefer a Turbo 350. If the ST-300 stops working, I likely will retrofit one. Until then…motor on!
Looking through the old car brochures, the 1964 Buick and Cadillac turbohydramatic 400 is advertised as not variable pitch. Then the 1965 Olds, Cadillac and Buick does explicitly say variable pitch. The variable pitch would allow for the torque converter to have a higher stall speed which might give third gear some advantage, but would also allow for more torque converter slip and fuel consumption. I have not driven any of these transmissions enough to know much. My parents did have a 65 Electra, but I drove it very little. I did drive the first generation dynaflow a lot.
The high stall speed is used at idle to reduce drag and at full throttle to improve performance but the low stall speed is used in other normal driving conditions (as soon as you press on the accelerator, even before the carb linkage moves it switched to low stall, unless you floor it).
Using converter with two stall speed not only increased the acceleration performance, it also allows using a lower “low stall” speed than in a regular non-variable pitch transmission. The only downside is the production cost.
Apparently, the move to introduce the variable pitch converter on the 400 transmission in 1965 models was done because the required agressive cam profiles on some Buick Nailheads (that compensate for the very small valves) didn’t idle smoothly enough with the non-variable pitch 400 in drive. So the feature was kept just one year after the Nailheads were replaced with the 430.
I also had quite a few cars with the variable pitch converter and never had an issue with them other than the microswitch on the linkage needing to be adjusted. I did have to replace the converter on a newer non-variable pitch 400.
After I posted earlier I googled this transmission to see what I could find. The twin turbine (and triple) dynaflows used a continuously variable pitch after about 1955 or so. It’s stall speed was about 1500 at the lowest pitch and 2500 at the highest.
If you have to floor the engine with the turbohydramatic 400 to switch the pitch, the transmission will downshift to 2nd gear (or even 1st), so I don’t see how this is much good, except perhaps at idle. I did find that the normal stall speed was 1800 with the high pitch about 2500.
Not sure if anyone will read this…..
I was surprised to hear that the THM 400 even had a switch pitch, but your explanation makes perfect sense, Phil. As well as explaining why it went away for 1965.
atsFred; Phil explained it: apparently it’s for idle and take-off issues only.
I’m not disputing what Phil said. However, a torque converter will couple once the turbine is turning at 2000 RPMs or so, even with a high stall speed. It does make sense that the nailhead engines worked better with the switch pitch. Why the heads were not redesigned for the nailhead is a good question to ask.
On the ST-300 and ST-400 transmissions with the variable pitch converters, there are two switches connected to the accelerator linkage and carburator. The one in the accelerator linkage is a simple microswitch that activates the stator solenoid to change the stall speed. As soon as there is any pressure on the gas pedal (or if the cruise control’s power unit is pulling on the linkage) the torque converter switches to low stall with a small delay (about 1 second).
That means, with the car in drive, while holding the brakes, pressing just a bit on the accelerator slows the engine’s RPM as the stall speed decreases before the throttle plates even move in the carburator.
The other switch is located on the top of the intake and has two sets of contacts, one for the kick-down solenoid (which both Super Turbine transmissions used) and another one for the stator pitch. Both contacts don’t close exactly at the same time but they close near full throttle acceleration.
In 1968, when the variable pitch converter was discontinued from both transmissons, only the kickdown switch remained and it was relocated inside the car, just above the gas pedal. Instead of having a screw adjustement, these had a sliding adjustment that caused a lot more problems as it got worn. I have changed that sliding switch 3 times on my 1968 Wildcat but never had to replace the older ones that were mounted under the hood.
I was pleased to find out that the 2010-current LaCrosse has the same “dip” in the bodywork as some of the older models.
Me too, just wish it was more sharply defined, i.e: deeper.
Yeah, but that drastic of a body panel would probably turn off too many straight-laced Buick buyers, who somehow don’t remember the days when Buick made muscle cars.
I agree; it’s so half-hearted that most people probably don’t notice it.
And don’t make the connection with Buicks of bygone days precisely because it’s so half-hearted.
I quite like the ’66–’67 A-bodies. The fender skirts actually don’t look bad in profile, although they blend oddly with the flying buttress roof — the open wheels of the Gran Sport cars work better in that regard. The one thing I don’t entirely like about the Buick version of this body are the headlight bezels, which feel a little cheap for the price. The stacked quads and bright bezels of the Le Mans seem better-executed graphically.
I have very little opinion about the Skylark, although I do love they flying buttresses!
But since you posted the picture of the Wildcat, I just have to say that I love that car!! Just gorgeous, just like almost every other full size car from GM in the mid to late ’60s. I can’t stop staring at it.
Guilty pleasures confession: I like both the ’68/’69 Buick Skylark coupe and the original pointy-bumper ’92 Skylark coupe. I’d never have the latter though because of those infernal GM “passive” seat belts mounted to the doors.
I like all the ’66/’67 GM A-bodies, but of course the standout is the Pontiac LeMans/GTO. I think the ’67 Skylark should have avoided the fender skirts, plus I don’t like the way the taillights were revised to dip into the bumper.
And I have that ’67 Buick full-line brochure!
What I find amazing is how GM could take a basic body type and give it such drastically different flavors. For this series, I prefer the Pontiac, but this has it’s charms too.
GM did do a good job with differing the divisions back then. And then wondered why all the complaints of look alikes in the 80s?
But the differerences were so much so that some thought of their favorite BOP brand as completely separate company. And don’t even suggest that anything is shared with a lowly Chevy! Yes, this led to the “Why is there a Chevy engine in my new Olds 88?!” lawsuits.
Also, the 1974 Ventura GTO is panned since it “looks like a Nova”, even if the previous mid sizers share many parts with Chevelles.
Brand Image is everything, still.
I never understood the hate for the ’74 GTO. Most people don’t realize it had a specific to it 4 barrel 350 rated at 200 SAE Net HP. Not to shabby for the time. In size, it was almost bang-on to the original ’64. Not only that, they even had a functional shaker,
while the Trans-Am’s was sealed. Image is everything, I guess.
Each division still used its own engines, which helped. Oldsmobile V-8s, for example, had a very distinctive exhaust note in the 1960s and 1970s.
The ’66 hit a sweet spot for me. No skirts and before that frumpy restyle in ’68. That gold color must have been really popular because we have a very similar car in our town that is still making the rounds. Thanks for the great morning coffee read Paul.
It’s finally happened! The CC Effect got me 🙂 ! On my way home from work last night I saw a beautiful ’67 Skylark 4 door sedan in a pleasant shade of turquoise. Wish I had my camera at the time.
That 67 Skylark has held up really well. Looks good in it’s gold color. Must have spent a lot of time in a garage. Great family story behind it, also. To me it really resembles 65-66 Impala with side skirts, except for the unique rear window treatment and taillamps. But that’s not a bad thing at all. I know I’m in the minority, but I’ve always liked the 57 Buick with the large wheel openings. Nice to see a new almost next to the curbside classic. No apologies needed for the woman that ‘spoiled’ your picture.
For all of the GM cars in my life as a kid in the 60s, these Skylarks were rarities. Until now, I had never noticed that the skirts were only on 67s and not on the 66s too. I had also never noticed that odd dash design with the horizontal shelf and its upward-jutting switches.
I like it. To me, this car took the basic issue A body and absolutely nailed the job of making it a perfect Buick. Understated, well trimmed, and just a touch of sport to go with the luxury.
The first thing I’d do is get rid of the skirts and use some ’67 Special rear wheelwell moldings. Then, I’d probably find some Buick rallies like my ’65 in the above picture has. Then, I’d leave the rest alone.
As for the girl in your picture–does anybody just walk and observe their surroundings anymore, or just think/ruminate, or even just worry? I’m glad I found Mrs. Aaron65 when I did, because I would have a hard time keeping my mouth shut if my SO were on the phone nonstop. Rant over, I guess.
Do your students play with their phones during class?
No, I make them keep their phones in their pockets–or in their lockers.
Phones with cameras are not a totally good idea when there are tests out and stuff like that. 🙂
My crotchety old man rant was more due to my perception of the general populace, although as soon as the bell rings, most students are looking down at their phones, walking through the halls. I’m generally oblivious to my surroundings due to my constant preoccupations, but man, we just need to stop and smell the roses every once in awhile.
I agree 100000%, people are just stupefied by the damn things, really the term “smartphone” is an oxymoron, they just make people stupider, they walk into traffic, rear end people. I swear, its the downfall of society.
The GOOD news is : the smarter ones *do* grow out of it ~ my Son came of age when beepers were all the rage and didn’t like not being allowed to have one , when he grew up and moved out he got his cell ‘phone and like the rest of them , was glued to it nonstop and it drove me batsh*t as he couldn’t wait to finish a conversation if it rang , etc. , etc. .
Now he/s in his mid 30’s and often pulls it out , glances at it and slips it back in his pocket un answered .
progress ! .
-Nate
@-Nate
My son does that too now, just the last year or so. Refreshing, isn’t it?
I need my phone for work, and its camera is invaluable for my CC stuff. I hardly use the browser because I can get that info when I’m sitting down at a desk which I’m doing most of the day. But I share your opinion; maybe some people just don’t have enough to think about on their own.
I turn mine on about once a week, just in case someone has called. But then I never even wear a watch. Utter technophobe!
I love my watch, an old sixties Seiko that is completely redundant because my phone has the time. It’s more a piece of man-jewellery hehehe. Don’t get me started on my own old man rant about oversized watches…
Right, because kids c. 19xx wouldn’t have done the same if they’d had phones.
People my age do the same thing, and I also think they need to look up from their stupid phones. I get around just fine with an emergency Tracfone that I almost never use, because I don’t feel the need to constantly vomit banal inanities via text.
“Hey hun, I’m coming through the door, but we’ll have nothing to talk about over dinner because we’ve been texting all day. So let’s just play with our phones and sit in silence.”
hehehe
I have not gotten a cell phone of any sort yet. I think my Mayo doctors would like me to have one, but I am still resisting. The iPhone 6 is supposed to be impervious to anyone breaking in.
That 68 intermediate sweep-spear is the reason I prefer the Olds Vista over the Buick Sport. Way too heavy handed.
This 67 is nice; not too precious and great backstory. I think the fenderskirt works with this body and this colour.
I have a soft spot for skirted Skylarks. If a person offered me a choice of a loaded Skylark Custom or a loaded GS, I’d be torn. The logical or conventional choice would be the GS, but the baby Electra thing appeals to me as well.
I’m the same way about the skirted Pontiac LeMans that came along by ’70, if not earlier.
“Skylark 225” That’s great!
The four door Skylarks, especially the hardtop, pulled off the fender-skirted look best. Two door Skylarks less so. Shades of the Luxury Lemans five years hence.
The Specials have different rear wheelhouses that made skirts impossible without looking goofy.
Yes Pete ;
It *IS* refreshing and good to know as when he was 18 or so I had a few white knuckle rides in commuter traffic where he texted as he was driving and told me we couldn’t continue going out to dinner if I refused to ride whilst he was texting & driving .
Sheesh ~I’m an old goat who’s insanely stubborn when it comes to doing the right thing , I missed out outings for a while then tried to insist I drive so he could text instead of tanking with me….
Kids ! the toughest job you’ll ever love =8-) .
-Nate
Thanks to marketing, during the 1960 decade, Detroit gave us “compact”, “intermediate” and “full-size” cars. The 1957-58 Recession, the popular Lark, Rambler and Beetle, countered Detroit’s thinking that buys wanted ever bigger cars. There was profit in the bigger is better line of marketing. Just as restaurant overhead is the same regardless of the amount of food served, a perceived value appears when you ladle out large portions, even when there is an increase in price. This is also a reason why Detroit struggled to find profit in a small car.
However, the 1960 decade launched the era of the land-barges as full size. By 1962, Ford filled the hole this created with the Fairlane, calling it an intermediate when it was actually a full size car from 1955 – merely updated. GM followed suit, as did Chrysler. This meant that what was defined as an intermediate, was actually a response to what was a full size car.
In reality, you could sit six people in a Rambler American, a Rebel, or an Ambassador. In reality, you could sit six people in a Dodge Dart, a Coronet, or a Polara.
In reality, you could sit six people in a Buick Skylark, or a LeSabre. Functionality was not the reason the term intermediate existed. It existed because of landbarges.
So as long as Detroit made landbarges, there were non-landbarges, called intermediates. Service vehicles were often these cars, since there were cheaper, but could still carry more than two adults.
So to us, these intermediates appear full size, because the last of the landbarges passed away 30 years ago. You are hard pressed to not see a 1976 Ford Torino as a full size car. Marketers at Ford said it was, but as usual, marketers aren’t telling what is reality. In 1976, Ford had an LTD that also sat 6, but was even bigger than the Torino.
A similar thing is happening with the SUV market today.
Probably been commented on before, but how perfect is it that this is photographed in front of the Big Little Burger? That’s serendipity!
Maybe the Big Little Burger is what inspired me to title it as I did?
That’s what I figured, but could any business name better capture the nature of this car? It’s perfect.
The thing that really catches the eye on those sixties’ Buick intermediates are the fender skirts. On a Chevelle, Tempest, or Cutlass? I think not.
But a Buick? Gotta have ’em, and says it all about where Buick thought the Skylark should be positioned in the market.
These cars are a very convincing imitation of an Electra 225. Because of their tidier dimensions, they are even more handsome than the real thing.
It’s interesting how GM endowed each of the A-bodies with its own personality. The Buick, Oldsmobile and Pontiac A-bodies were convincing “companion” versions of the full-size models, at a time when the full-size versions still carried greater prestige than their “low-price three” counterparts.
The problem with the nailhead isn’t that the valves were too small, rather the displacement got too big.The below horrible exhaust ports didn’t help things either. Valve sizes were fine for the original 322.
The four door especially channels the big Buick…….
So confused initially looking at these fender skirts on this ‘67. I’m thinking to myself I swear I’ve seen them without… Duh, Skylark, not Special. Sometimes you forget not all GM divisional cars in their size class shared a “base” name versus a trim level we essentially see today. (F-85 vs. Cutlass is another way different juxtaposition That throws me).
The RWD X-Bodied Chevrolet Nova based Buick Skylark was very much in the size and weight range of the RWD A-Bodied Chevrolet Chevelle Malibu based Buick Skylark that the Buick Cars from 1972-1995 shown on this photo montage compilations were all within the striking range of 200″ so they were more or less in the virtue of their exterior sizes in the Intermediate to entry level full-size categories. These were the Two Door Coupes’.
Wrong photo montage compilation. This is the correct one.
Growing up in the late 1970s / early 1980s, my perception of Buick was generally “old man’s car”, and indeed, the “old man” was fond of Buicks. The one I remember was a ’69 Special. Buick was “the doctors’ car”, and as Dad was indeed a physician, maybe at the time that was the car de rigeur in the preferential spaces at the hospital parking lot before Mercedes took title. I remember a colleague of his had a ’70 Electra 225 in gold with black top. Oddly enough, a few doors down, a neighbor had a 1967 Skylark in light blue with white top (eventually replaced with a ’76 Lesabre in tan and then a final ’85 Lesabre in dark green.) He was not a doctor, but the manager of a local grocery store. Very nice and decent people, he and his wife. At some point in American society, probably around the 1980s, a more rigid class system took hold, and I suppose it just would not (in the mind of the American car-buying public) do to have a car a grocer owned. Too bad because it was a good car, and he was a great guy, doing honest work.
Myself, despite being a “GM Guy”, Buick generated little to no excitement from me, although I still have a fondness for a couple, particularly the 1963 / 1964 Riviera, and this. Despite being an eagle-eyed car enthusiast, the Skylark / Special of 1966 and 1967 especially look larger than they are. The fender skirts look irritatingly old fashioned and hokey, but the overall look of the car obviously is a trickle down effect from the beautiful 1965 GM big cars, particularly the full-sized Chevrolet, one of my favorite car designs. The inspiration is obvious here, although less pure with the aformentioned skits, the faux side vents, etc. I greatly prefer the ’67 Special that did not have the skirts, and had ventiports that were integrated into the sidespear trim. A more understated design.
Today, the Skylark and Special would be an infinitely more sensible size for a car than the full-sized ’65 Chevy for everyday driving. Of course the saying was “Wouldn’t you really rather have a Buick?”….well, usually the answer would be a deinitieve “NO!”, but there are some exceptions over the years with the Riviera, a few of the recently departed Regal models that were actually rebadged Opels (does that count??), and this.
Following up on my previous comment as I seem to keep returning to this car, everything is so spot on in the author’s observations. Regarding the deceptive size, I think of the 1967 film “The Comedians” based on the Graham Greene novel. Set in Haiti, the movie was filmed at studios in the South of France, and some desert scenes in Dahomey / Benin in West Africa. There is a scene where characters played by Richard Burton and Paul Ford are riding in a black 1962 Buick Electra with red leather interior as they are given a tour of “Duvalierville”, a decrepit Potemkin Village intended to convey great progress and humanitarian achievement funded by wealthy countries with the horrifying reality shown when a legless beggar crawls out seeking help and is brushed away by the military official guide. Shot on location in Africa. As they return to their hotel, it is a 1964 Skylark convertible in the same color combination bringing them back (actually filmed in the South of France). Although it was obvious to me, the styling of the two vehicle is so consistent that it was an acceptable “continuity error”. It wasn’t the type of ludicrous continuity flaw in an episode of the British series “The Sandbaggers” set in Czechoslovakia. A Chaika limousine is traveling through the streets of Prague in stock film, and at the hotel, a 1972 Ford LTD that had the chrome pattern of the Chaika taped on to it. It was an incident of absurdly poor filmmaking despite the series being exceptional.