The Svelte 1967 Buick 4-Door Hardtop

Sometimes it takes a large canvas to do a subject justice.  Putting it another way, an automobile styling axiom is that it's easier to produce a good design on a large car than on a small one.

Today's example is the 1967 full-size Buick four door hardtop sedan with a 123.0-inch  (3124 mm) wheelbase.  Model names for non-compact/intermediate Buicks were LeSabre, Wildcat and Electra, the latter being the most expensive.  Some background on LeSabres is here -- scroll down to the Third Generation section.

The 1960s represented something of Silver Age (maybe even a Golden one) for General Motors styling.  That was when the peppery Bill Mitchell was Design Vice President.

One of his team's better efforts in those days was the 1967 facelift of the 1965 large-body four-door hardtop sedan.  Yes, those cars were long and large.  Yet graceful, as can be seen below.

Gallery

1968 Buick LeSabre 4-door hardtop - factory image
Nearly identical with '67 models, I include this photo because it does a good job of showing the design.  That downward curving character line echoes Buick's famous 1949-1958 chrome SweepSpear.

1965 Buick Wildcat 4-door hardtop - car listed for sale
Here is the initial design that was facelifted for the '67 model year.  The windshield and door cut lines are the same, but most of the sheetmetal cladding was changed along with the aft section of the passenger compartment top.  General Motors was prosperous then, and could afford such a drastic "freshening."

1967 Buick LeSabre 4-door hardtop - factory photo
The grille is simple, though lacks the traditional Buick vertical chrome bars (which might well have spoiled the design).

1967 Buick LeSabre 4-door hardtop - factory photo
Graceful in side-view, the rear fender area seems a bit heavy in these quarter views.

1967 Buick Electra 4-door hardtop - for sale car
Now for a mini-walkaround.

Electras were longer than LeSabres and Wildcats, having a 126.0-inch (3200 mm) wheelbase.  The passenger compartment top differs from what was shown in the previous 1967-68 photos.  And the effect of the lengthening is a degradation of the design.  The rear overhang seems too long, and the reshaped top is angular enough that the graceful feeling of the LeSabre version is lost.

A trunk made for several sets of golf clubs.

1963 Chevrolet Corvette Walkaround

Chevrolet Corvette sports cars have been marketed since 1953.  I must confess that I haven't paid much attention to the styling evolution over most of the eight body design generations produced so far.  (Note to self: do a blog post on the subject -- that'll bring me up to speed).   I'm most aware of the first two generations and wrote about first-generation Corvettes several times (see the marque-list sidebar on the right), including this one lamenting its 1958 facelift.

The other Corvette generation that interests me is the second.  It is known as the Stingray, and the most iconic model was its 1963 introductory model year coupe with a two-piece backlight window.

I rate the '63 Corvette coupe styling as "interesting" rather than beautiful.  Because the design carries too much detailing for my taste, as will be seen in the Gallery images below.  That said, I do like the design.  On an emotional, rather than an aesthetic level.

Agree?  Disagree?  Well, let's do a walkaround.  This post's featured car is a 1963 Corvette coupe, photos via Bring a Trailer Auctions.

Gallery

First, three factory images indicating how Chevrolet wanted the Sting Ray to be seen and appreciated.

This, and the image above show that the design features a horizontal character line that extends all the way around the car.  The 1960 first-generation Chevrolet Corvair had a similar feature.

Overhead view showing the split backlight.  The stylistic reason for the split is the centerline roof crease extending from the windshield to a tiny distance from the aft edge of the car.  The divider bar tended to obscure rear-view mirror visibility, so for 1964, the backlight became a one-piece affair and the bar was consigned to styling history.  Nevertheless, from a styling standpoint (not an ergonomic one), the roof and backlight treatment was interesting and consistent.

Now for the featured Corvette.  Headlight assemblies are rotated open.

The profile is well-shaped.  

The rear quarter is rather busy, yet thematically consistent due to the repeated "boat tail" convergences of the rear fenders and the passenger compartment greenhouse.

I doubt that the passenger compartment boat tail was the result of wind tunnel testing, due to the rapid convergence.  But I might be wrong.

There are sculpted faux air outlets on the B-pillar and front fender abaft of the wheel opening.  These items contribute to the excess detailing mentioned above.

Though the B-pillar is wide, the wraparound backlight keeps the greenhouse looking airy.

The hood featured a forward-thrusting, low profile reverse- boat tail.  But that's echoed by the raised front fender shaping, carrying the theme also seen at the car's rear.  Front and rear bumpers are similarly shaped.

There also are air vents on the hood -- functional ones.

Opened headlights mar the styling, but that probably couldn't be avoided, given early 1960s technology.

The dashboard is cluttered.

Giugiaro's 1961 Alfa Romeo 2000 Sprint Walkaround

The 1961 Alfa Romeo 2000 Sprint by Bertone pictured in the publicity photo above is of interest because it is one of the first of Georgetto Giugiaro's designs.  It laid the groundwork for his classic Giulia GT.

It needs to be added that both designs' character was inherited from Franco Scaglione's 1954 Alfa Romeo Giulietta Sprint bodied by Bertone.

Photos below of a 1962 2000 Sprint are from Gallery Aaldering, a Dutch seller of classic cars.

Gallery

The overall design is in the spirit of early 1950s Golden Age (to my way of thinking) Italian coachwork.

The car was small enough that a simple fenderline supported by large wheel openings could be used without fear of visual bulk (as found on the 1949 Packard line, for example).

Plenty of glass in the passenger compartment greenhouse due to its height compared to the lower body.

A simple rear end design with the trunk lid lip gently curved so as to avoid a monotonous horizontal effect.

The horizontal upper edge of the rear wheel opening and the sculpting that trails from it are unnecessary: Giugiaro eliminated these on the Giulia GT.  I suspect that little reflector (or running light?) on the front fender was not to Giugiaro's liking, as it added a tiny bit of clutter to this side view.

The front of the car seems a bit heavy looking, but that was largely unavoidable for engineering/functionality reasons.

Quad headlights were expected in those days.  This treatment uses different-diameter lights, adding interest and eliminating the boredom of having four identical large round objects in view.  The chrome strip along the center of the hood seems unnecessary.

Further 1939 Ford-Mercury Comparisons

A while ago I compared 1939 Mercury and Ford styling.  For model years 1939 and 1940, the new Mercury Eight brand had a unique body set.  Thereafter, Mercurys shared bodies with Fords and Lincolns (though not both for the same year).

Given that history of Ford Motor Company brands sharing bodies, along with the similarity of '39 Mercury and Ford sedans, it is easy to casually assume that 1939 models of both brands also shared bodies.  A number of similarities and differences were treated in the post linked above.  The present post features side views of sedans and coupes to further compare their styling.

Besides different bodies, Fords and Mercury had different wheelbases.  The Mercury wheelbase was 116 inches (2946 mm) and Fords were 112 inches (2845 mm).  Both brands looked stubby compared to competing General Motors cars.

Gallery

1939 Ford DeLuxe Fordor Sedan - for sale
Ford sedans were redesigned for the 1938 model year and facelifted for 1939 and 1940.

1939 Mercury Eight Town Sedan - Mecum auction photo
Mercury side windows had slightly more rounded profiles than Ford's.  The roofline is a bit more curved at the rear.  Its A-pillar is more slanted.  The rear fender has a higher profile and therefore looks more full.  Its front fender is more in the boxy, "suitcase" mode than the Ford's.  Hood profiles seem quite similar.

1939 Ford DeLuxe Coupe - Mecum
Ford's '39 coupe seems partly based on the 1937 body.

1939 Mercury Eight Sedan Coupe - Mecum
Mercury's coupe is more modern, the window framing being similar in spirit to Hayes Coupes on 1939 Chrysler Corporation brands.

Customline: 1956 Ford's Nicest Side Trim

I posted "Side Trim Variations: 1956 Ford Line" here, but made no evaluation.  I'll do that now, regarding hardtop coupes offered on Ford's mid-range Customline cars and top-of-the-line Fairlanes.

My conclusion is that the Customline design was better than the Fairlane's.  The case is presented in the Gallery below.  Images are of cars listed for sale or are of unknown source, unless noted.

Gallery

1955 Ford Customline Tudor Sedan
Ford did not offer a hardtop coupe on its 1955 Customline series, so this two-door sedan will have to represent one.  Side chrome trim is simply a horizontal strip.

1955 Ford Fairlane Victoria
This is Ford's '55 hardtop coupe.  The chrome side trim was used as a color separator for two-tone schemes.  Its J-shape has always struck me as being both awkward and arbitrary -- not relating to the basic body design.  Due to Ford's large production volume (it was number two in sales that year), that trim motif told Americans what Fords were expected to look like: to this day, that J-trim screams 1955-56 Ford.

1955 Ford Fairlane Crown Victoria
Crown Victorias were not hardtop coupes thanks to the large B-pillar.  Yet the term "Victoria" was used by Ford marketers.  I include this photo because the roofline and upper window profiles were used in 1956 for all Ford Victorias.

1956 Ford Fairlane Victoria
1956 Fairlanes retained the J-strip, but in modified form.  The downward curve is less extreme, placing the inflection point farther aft.  The horizontal section is wider and ribbed.  Note the new roofline from the '55 Crown Victoria.

1956 Ford Customline Victoria
Customline now has a hardtop coupe with the same passenger compartment greenhouse as the Fairlane's.  Lacking is the broad chrome strip over the windows, resulting in this cleaner design.  The most important improvement is the side trim: no J-shape.  I think '56 Customlines were more attractive than Fairlanes.  That said,  the design of the side trim would have been better were the after extension of the front segment eliminated.  But that was in the mid-1950s when American car styling was getting too elaborate.

1956 Ford Fairlane Victoria
Now for a few non- side view comparisons.

1956 Ford Customline Victoria
The side trim of the Customline is better related to body details such as the headlight assembly "frenching."  This car would look even better without the side two-toning.

1956 Ford Fairlane Victoria
The wide, ribbed horizontal chrome strip almost aligns with trail lights, but not quite.

1956 Ford Customline Victoria - photo via Old Cars Weekly
Here the after side strip aligns with the body sculpting, a better solution than the Fairlane's.

1942 Buick Roadmaster Fastback Walkaround

The 1942 model year was a low-production affair in the United States because the government ordered building of automobiles to halt early in 1942 following the country's entry into World War 2 in December 1941.  Therefore, there aren't very many 1942 American cars around today.

Fortunately, one survivor of an especially interesting type was auctioned by Mecum in 2019, and there are many photos of it available.  It is a Buick Roadmaster Sedanet 2-door fastback.  Only 2,475 1942 Roadmaster C-body Sedanets were made, plus 3,000 Roadmaster and Super Convertible Coupes with the same exclusive fenderline.

Those senior-level Buicks were built on General Motors' new for 1942 C-body that I wrote about here.

Fastback designs were becoming popular in those days because they gave cars a streamlined appearance, and streamlining was expected to be the future of automobile styling.  As it happened, car body shapes became dictated by wind tunnel testing more than 30 years later after the US government imposed fuel economy restrictions.  Classical 1940s fastback styling faded by the early 1950s due to lack of luggage space compared to cars with bustleback trunks.

As hinted above, an interesting styling feature of the Roadmaster Sedanets and Convertible Coupes was the fenderline.  The front fender extended aft until it touched the rear fender.  This was a forecast of near-future fender design by most American carmakers.  All other 1942 Buicks had front fenders that extended only partway across front doors like other GM cars.  Front fenders from most other American carmakers did not extend beyond the front door's forward cutline.  Therefore, this post's subject car was indeed futuristic in its day.

Gallery

The frontal design doesn't seem to match the more dramatic rest of the car.

The roof curve is not as sleek as found in Buick's 1949 fastback redesign, but the trunk carrying capacity here might have been a bit greater.

The rear seems rather heavy from this perspective.

There is a semi- boat-tail shape to the trunk lid area.  The taillight assemblies might have looked better had the round elements been placed towards the body edges.  The setup here has a cross-eyed look.

Those bold, horizontal stripes were eliminated for the next model year: 1946.

Use of rear wheel opening spats was necessary, creating continuation sculpting on the rear fender.

Only a kid in a gas station performing a lubrication job would see this car in something like this way.

Model year 1942 was the first for many years that Buick grilles featured vertical bars.  Buick added vertical bars in the grille for 1939, but that was abandoned for 1940 and 1941 and then brought back for 1942.  The flat bar surfaces create a somewhat weak appearance. Headlight placement at the fender edges rather than closer to the center was GM playing catchup with competitors' designs.