'59 vs. '60 Buicks

[Guest]

I find myself in the fortunate position of considering another car purchase. I've always been intrigued by the 59 and 60 models. I'd like to get a little more info, lest I leap into an ill-advised purchased. <P>I'd like to know things like the rarity and desirability of different engines (364 vs. 401), models (Le Sabre vs. Invicta vs. Electra), and body styles. I'd also like to know about the rarity of available options, such as A/C, power windows, bucket seats(?), leather uphosltery, etc. Next, are there any particular components that are known to be suspect (e.g. transmission). Lastly, can anyone give me any pointers on differences between the two years?<P>Thanks.

[Centurion]

The 1959 and 1960 Buicks are both spectacularly-styled automobiles that seem to be receiving quite a bit of collector attention at the present time. These are great cars for someone looking for a car from the late tail fin era who wants something different from the usual '59 Cadillac or '57 Chevrolet.<P>John Lawlor wrote a fine article on these cars entitled "1959-60 Buick, The Delta Wing Years". This was published in the June, 1992 issue of "Collectible Automobile". Back issues of this fine publication can be ordered. I think that you might find the concluding paragraphs of this article to be of interest. Lawlor noted that these cars were not particularly successful in the marketplace, so that's the context of his comments:<P>"Why did the 1959 and 1960 Buicks do so poorly in the marketplace? I don't believe it was because of their quality as automobiles -- I drove Buicks of both years while working as an associate editor for Motor Life from 1958 to 1960. I was impressed with their performance and roadability, and considered them above average on both counts for full-size U.S. cars. But perhaps Buick's traditional buyers considered them too far out in appearance. For that matter, by 1960 the general public seemed to be tiring of radical-looking, befinned cars, whether Forward Look or Delta Wing. Too, many buyers were turning away from big cars to smaller, more economical ones. Both imports and Detroit's own new compacts were gaining rapidly in popularity.<P>"So the turn-of-the-decade Buicks appear to have been out of tune with their times. They were big and flashy when much of the car-buying public was thinking small and thrifty.<P>"But, for all that, the 1959 and 1960 Buicks were excellent automobiles and deserve to be remembered as such."<P>The comments in the "Value Guide" portion of the same issue are also of interest:<P>" . . . market values defy the common conception, which is that the pure original tailfinned Buick is more interesting and desirable than its facelifted 1960 successor. Pricewise, it's a wash. The '60 Buicks lacked the flair of the exotic '59's, but in some ways were better cars. Body style and condition being equal, prices reflect the model hierarchy: Electra 225 beats Electra, which beats Invicta, which beats LeSabre. Actually, the LeSabre is the best handler and performer, which suggests that the LeSabre convertible is a very good buy at around $4000 or $5000 less than a comparable Invicta or Electra 225 ragtop. .l . Then again, these days, any '59 Buick is a good buy for the money -- they took quite a hit when the market cooled in 1989-90. We'd stick to the '59's as the original design, figuring this will count for something as time passes." <P>Now you get my opinions: You will find that some collectors have strong preferences for the '59's, but others like the '60's better. Personally, I prefer the more dramatic and angular look of the front and rear end of the '59. Someone once described the '60 as a "melted '59". On the other hand, the body side styling of the '59 is pretty plain compared to the '60, which had some very interesting side sculpturing. The '59 bodyside was plain in part because the '59's represented a "crash" design effort to compete with Chrysler's '57 Forward Look. In order to save money, the entire GM line was designed around the Buick's outer door skin, so perhaps it had to be a bit generic. GM designers of the era have said that the '59 Buick came closest to achieving the corporation's intended theme for the '59 models and was probably the most "Moparesque" of all the GM '59 models.<P>I also like the flashier instrument panel design of the '59's compared to the '60's, although the '60 does have the unique Mirror-o-Magic. The driver actually sees the instruments reflected in an adjustable mirror rather than the instruments themselves.<P>With respect to quality, Buick was making great strides to distance itself from some quality problems that arose during the mid-1950's. In this respect, the 1960 models probably do have an edge over the '59's, as quality seemed to be improving each year during this time period. Still, I have seen nothing about my '59 that indicates poor build quality. The car still seems very solid and has no squeaks or rattles. The large finned aluminum brake drums used during both years were excellent.<P>With respect to options, another person who posts here has some published statistics. He has previously reported that only about 10% of the '59's were built with factory A/C. At $430, it was an expensive and fairly unusual option. Some have installed factory A/C systems removed from donor cars into their '59's, but report that this is a very difficult and time-consuming task.<P>You asked about trouble areas. These cars were reliable and excellent cars. Two '59 options are worth discussing, however. The rear air suspensions were not considered to be satisfactory, and many cars with that option have been converted to conventional coil springs. The other option was Triple Turbine, which was the '59 rendition of 1958's Flight Pitch. (The regular variable pitch Dynaflow was named "Twin Turbine" for '59, and seems to be far more common.) This transmission has not enjoyed a good reputation, and was very costly for GM to design and manufacture. I have received mixed comments about Triple Turbine. Some articles state that it was not really a bad transmission, but was simply an engineering failure in that it did not achieve its performance objectives. Prior to buying a '59 with Triple Turbine, I spoke with one of the BCA's tech advisors about the transmission. He reported that he had received very satisfactory long-term performance from the Triple Turbine in a daily driver '59 he used for years. His opinion was that the transmission had received a "bad rap" simply because it is unusual compared to the regular Dynaflows.<P>The Triple Turbine in my '59 works fine, but the car's original owner did have it rebuilt (about $1,500) prior to putting the car up for sale in 1998. (The car had sat for a period of several years, and the transmission leaked badly.) Despite whatever weakness the Triple Turbine design may have had, I expect that it will be adequate for collector car use. Both Triple Turbine and the air suspension were discontinued at the end of the 1959 model year. Triple Turbine does seem to be more common on the upper series cars, but I have seen it even on LeSabres.<P>More comments later.<P>Brian Laurance, BCA#5168<BR>1959 Buick Electra 4-door hardtop<p>[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: Centurion ]

[Guest]

Brian,<P>Thanks for the info. That's just the kind of stuff I was looking for.<P>I'm a little curious about the statement that <I>"the LeSabre is the best handler and performer"</I>. Are there specific powertrain or suspension differences that would account for that opinion?<P>Thanks.

[Guest]

Centurian, my Dad had a 59 Invicta and swore<BR>by it. He did tell me a story about the<BR>59's that I find har dto believe. Was it true<BR>that Buick Management bought 3 or 4 59's<BR>off of three or four different showrooms and<BR>took them to Daytona and ran them wide open<BR>for 10000 miles stopping only for Gas and<BR>change of Drivers and they averaged "130MPH"?<BR>He swore it was a true story. Loren 56 Buick Century

[Guest Skyking]

I always liked the styling of the 60 over the 59. The 60 was more refined. The only thing that kind of turns me off with either, is the torque tube. It would seem to make the car clumzy. 61 was the first year for open drive shaft ( actully a split shaft ).I used to have a 55 Special and the torque tube drive made the rear of the car hop over bumps. I now have a 62 Invicta, (2nd year for drive shafts) and the car handles great. I never drove a 59 or 60 but if it's anything like the 55, I would prefer the 61 or 62...........my 2 cents

[Guest miked]

I also like the lines of the '60 better the '59 seems bigger and more 50's. All of the '60 GM cars were the very sharpest of the finned cars, 60 bel-airs were cool. '60 cadilac, '60 pontiac. maybe an exception to this would be the Olds (wow was that thing ugly) (sorry olds guys) Also only my $.02.

[Guest miked]

Oh yea, My Lesabre has the 364 and I hot rodded it a little by installing hardend seats, and SS valves, a KB cam, tri-power (all the carbs WORK.) and a true dual exhaust. It runs VERY good and has no trouble getting out of it's own way, but if I were to do it all over again I would build a 401 for sure... the parts are way easier to find and they are the same price. Besides the 401 and 425 nailheads have a drag racing legacy that cannot be denied.<P>I belive the invicta came with a 401. But not the Lesabre. It would be an easy swap.

[WQ59B]

Wow Centurion- your fingers must be smokin'! You didn't leave much unsaid for others to chime in on!<P>With regards to options-- in 1959- automatic: 98.8%, PBrakes: 68.7%, PSteering: 78.5%, PSeats: 14.5%, tinted glass: 44.1%, A/C: 10%. Don't have any other percentages.<P>In 1960- automatic: 98.9%, A/C: 14%. All the figs I have- sorry.<P>As far as the LeSabre being "the best handler and performer"-- I have to believe that's conjecture on the part of the writer. A '59 LeSabre 2-dr hardtop weighed 4188 while an Invicta 2-dr was 4274 (shipping weights). However, the LeSabre only had 250 HP (16.7 lbs/HP) while the Invicta had 325 (13.1 lbs/HP). There's no greater engine weight other than a few pounds between the 2bbl/4bbl & intakes... but I think many writers mistakenly assume a lighter car will perform better. But there's 'no replacement for displacement'. Handling should be the same and acceleration should be better for an Invicta over a LeSabre. There are no suspension options (other than the above-mentioned rear air susp) There's only 4<BR>axle ratios, too: 2.78 for Triple Turbines & 3.07 or 3.23 for Twin Turbines. Only the manual trans LeSabres got 3.58s.<P>radionut98's story is for the '60 Buicks- Buick ran a '60 for 10,000 miles at Daytona and refueled at speed. The Buick averaged 120.12 MPH and often approached 130 MPH. Though the feat was a success, Buick felt it violated GMs voluntary agreement with the 1957 Automobile Manufacturers Association's anti-performance edict and decided not to publicize the event.<P>In my opinion, the '59's are the more pure and inspiried design while the '60s get (relatively) too busy and all the great sharp edges of the '59 are all worn down on the '60. The '60 may indeed be stylistically more refined, but the '59 is more viseral and primal. The '59 is like nothin else!<P>Good luck in your search/purchase!

[Dave@Moon]

A couple of points;<P>In 1960 there was a 300 hp. 401 that was optional in the LeSabre with a 3-speed manual. This may account for the LeSabre being the better performer quote. <P>In both years the LeSabre was significantly lighter than the Invicta while using the same suspension system and wheels. Most people would consider the lighter care to be the better handler, all things being equal.<P>I, too believe the 1960 to have a more refined look to iot than the '59. I believe the 1960 car to present one of the most cohesive looks of any car of the fin idiom, with the following caveat. In 1960 the hardtop coupe and convertible designs work beautifully, but the execution of the four-door sedan and especially the wagon models did not come off as well. The graceful lines added too much visual weight to the sedan and wagon bodies, which appear heavy natuarally to begin with. The 1959 four door models come off much better.<P>To my eye for both years the cars are visually more appealing in the lowest trim lines. The Electra and Electra 225 can look heroically overdecorated beside a LeSabre or Invicta. <P>Side view mirrors are very hard to come by, and can be laughably expensive. NOS parts in general, however, are not as hard to get as one might expect, particualrly the mechanical pieces. In 1959 Buick ranked 7th in sales, and in 1960 they ranked 9th (their lowest rank from 1909 to 2002). Both years were major sales dissappointments, and I think Buick simply made too many of certain parts expecting more sales. I could've filled a good sized bushel basket with the ignition switches I've passed by for my car.<P>Replacement interior trim does not exist. Some of the old fabrics can be located to reupholster seats, but damaged/decayed interior panels will have to be replaced out of parts cars.<P>I think the 1960 car may have the heaviest front bumper in human history!<P>Installation rates for various options are hard to find. My car is a 1960 LeSabre 2-door hardtop. It has the optional ($52) low-compression 235 hp motor with the twin-turbine (this engine was standard in manual cars). It has the major advantage of running on regular unleaded pump gas. Judging by the number of pieces specific to this motor that I can find, this was a very rare option.<P>It has been a problem, however, in that this engine used a Stromberg WW2 carb that is both very rare (for the 1959-60 car) and troublesome. The carb is so small (Willys and Dodge flathead sixes used the same carb) that the heat from the Buick big block boils today's lighter gases right out of it. At the 2001 National Rick Shick (the BCA tech advisor for 1960) told me that most cars were converted over to the Carter 2-brl. form the 250 hp engine. I solved the problem using an electric fuel pump.<P>At least I average 17 mpg on the highway.<P>My car has a rear speaker for the radio, which I haven't often seen on a LeSabre. It has the "Deluxe" steering wheel, which I think virtually all of them had. It also has no clock, with a large chrome "BUICK" faced pseudo-clock instead. I've only ever seen one other car with this piece in place of a clock. <P>Finally, I've always been suprised at the excellent roadability of the my LeSabre. It has the slowest powertrain combination available, yet it will break the tires loose if pressed and generally accelerates, steers and (especially) brakes wonderfully. Also it is a very comfortable car to ride in, although most Buicks have more interior room. (This is another point in the 1960's favor over the 1959, the 1960 floor was lowered 1 inch for more legroom.) <P>In general, I don't think you can much better in a 1950's style car.

[Guest 70 Electra]

Dave@Moon,<BR>Due you have any additional information on your statement that a 300hp 401 was optional in the LeSabre?<P>I must have darn near every piece of 60 literature and have been a fan (and sometimes owner) of these cars for years. I have every single revision of the order form from Aug 59 thru May 60, and the Salesman's Facts Book. None of these show information suggesting a 401 of ANY horsepower was ever available in a LeSabre. <P>If memory serves me, as I write this, there were 4 different 364's for the LeSabre. Three were available with automatic: A standard prem fuel 2 bl, an optional 4 barrel (w/ dual exhausts), a optional 2bl regular fuel motor (sounds like yours). The manual trans had a reduced power 2bl 364 and was the only engine available with the manual trans.<P>If you have printed evidence of a 401 being available in LeSabre's, I'd be very interested in obtaining xerox copies, for which I would happily reimburse postage and copy expenses. Let me know!<P>Greg

[Dave@Moon]

Greg,<P>I didn't check any of my original literature for that statement. That stuff is still packed away in boxes from my interstate move a few months back. <P>Thank Information came from <I>The Standard Catalog of Buick 1903-1990.</I> It states: "A high-performance Wildcat 405 four barrell V8 was also optioonal on Series 4400 models with three-speed manual transmission. This combination featured 300 horsepower at 4400 rpm and cost $220 additional."<P>There's no option code given. Somewhere I have an original order form for the car. If I can dig it out in the next few days I'll see what it says.

[Centurion]

Regarding body styles, the conventional "collector car" wisdom is that the convertible and 2-door hardtop cars are the styles that are worth pursuing. There is no doubt that the '59 and '60 Buicks look dynamite as convertibles and 2-door hardtops. Nonetheless, I would be careful not to dismiss the other body styles without a look.<P>There are a number of collectors -- myself included -- who favor the 4-door hardtop style on these cars. I would not claim that these cars look better than the coupes and convertibles, but they are stylish in their own right and are a very unique design. I have articles from various collector car publications that date as far back as 1976 arguing for the "special interest" stature of this roofline. Many writers regard it as the most significant styling innovation (along with Pontiac's split grille) of the 1959 GM design program. Known as the "flying wing" or "cantilever" roofline within the corporation, the roof is now generally called the "flattop". The massive wrap around rear window and thin roof pillars were intended to make the roof appear to be floating above the car body. Interestingly, one friend, observing my car for the first time, made the statement that the roof looks detached from the rest of the car. Interviews with some of GM's designers of this period state that Harley Earl wanted to finish these roofs entirely in stainless steel, but the corporation's experience with the stainless steel roofs on the '57-'58 Cadillac Eldorado Brougham revealed that such a plan would be prohibitively expensive. The linear look of the flattop roofline seems to work especially well with the straight-edged look of the '59's.<P>Since all GM cars (except Corvette and Corvair) used the same basic body shell in '59 and '60, there is a high degree of interchangeability throughout the Buick line. This was not the case with the earlier Buicks, where Specials and Centuries shared a body shell with Oldsmobile, and the Supers and Roadmasters shared a body shell with the Cadillac. What this means is that the owner of a '59 Electra can pull parts off a '59 LeSabre and use them on his car. The front end sheetmetal, 2-door doors, 4-door rear doors, decklids, bumpers, moldings, etc. will interchange across all LeSabre, Invicta and Electra series cars. The Electra 225 4-door hardtops, however, are unique in the rear quarter area.<P>The LeSabre and Invicta cars rode a 123-inch wheelbase, while all Electra and Electra 225 cars had a 126.3-inch wheelbase. The added length of the standard Electras is entirely in the passenger compartment. In addition to the longer wheelbase, the Electra 225 4-door hardtops (both the "flattop" and the 6-window Riviera sedan -- a style shared only with Cadillac) have an extended rear deck that make them 5-inches longer than the standard Electras and the Electra 225 convertible. The Electra 225 4-door models, therefore, are somewhat similar to the '58 Limited in concept, where the added length was in the rear overhang area. The uniqueness of these cars adds to their desirability, in my opinion.<P>Bucket seats were optionally available in the Electra 225 convertible for both years. I believe that bucket seats became available on Invicta coupes and convertibles for 1960 as part of the Invicta Custom package.<P>Regarding handling . . . I had not personally owned a Buick older than 1965 prior to buying my '59. I expected that the steering would be vague and over-assisted, as was the case with some other '50's era cars I had driven. I fitted my '59 with steel radials as soon as I took delivery; the bias ply tires on the car were ancient and in poor condition. I was very pleasantly surprised by the precise steering and general roadability of the car. It far surpasses the expectation I had in this regard.<P>My '59 attracts attention wherever I go, and my car is far from being a show car. Still, I take it to a few shows. At a 650-car show of all makes last summer, more than a few people told me it was their favorite car of the entire event. It was, of course, the only Buick of this vintage at the event. Even the owner of the Corvette parked next to meet was amazed at the level of interest the '59 generated.<P>Brian Laurance, BCA #5168<BR>1959 Electra 4-door hardtop<P>[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: Centurion ]<p>[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: Centurion ]

[Guest 70 Electra]

Dave@Moon,<BR>Ahhh. That explains things. You should know better than to rely on one of those notoriously inaccurate Krause publications like the "Standard Catalog" series. <P>No need to dig out the order form, as I already have them all and the 401 is not listed for the LeSabre.<P>Anybody else ever hear of any substantiation of a 401 option on a manual trans LeSabre for 1960? I still maintain this is a bogus claim.<P>(So Dave, now that you're closer to Detroit are you coming up for the Woodward Dream Cruise??)

[rocketraider]

No offense taken by the Olds camp concerning "ugly 60s". Most of us think a 58 Buick is garish (Limited and Roadmaster 75 excepted), but we know people own and love them. I'm iffy on the 60 myself, sometimes I love it, sometimes I can't stand it, but I grew up with a white over Citron Dynamic 88 so there will always be a soft spot in my heart and wallet for one.

[Dave@Moon]

A quick memory triggered by Centurions post on Electra 225 length. Those extended rear deck cars are l--o--o--n--n--g--! It turns out that the garage in my old house would've been too small to fit one (I had to measure to see if it'd fit the LeSabre), and it was a relatively new home of 15 years age (i.e. not a small Model A sized outbuilding like some older homes).<P>I'm going to try to make the Woodward cruise for sure. It's tough to commit at this date, but I'm looking forward to it! <P>However, I'll see ya in Flint in 2003 if I have to sell a kid!!!

[Centurion]

For Dave@Moon and 70 Electra:<P>The 1959 option list shows a "Power Pack" option for the LeSabre that includes dual exhausts and a 4-bbl carburetor. Rated at 300-horsepower, the option was only available on cars equipped with Twin or Triple Turbine automatics. The engine was still the 364-cid nailhead -- not the 401. I suspect that this same option was continued in 1960.

[WQ59B]

OK- so a Power-Pack 300 HP 364 LeSabre has 13.9 lbs/HP but is still within 100 lbs in weight of an Invicta. You won't be able to tell any handling differences without instrumentation and the performance will still be less than an Invicta. So the LeSabre will not be "the best handler and performer". Collectible Automobile --while a great in-depth publication-- occasionally makes these types of over-generalized (or under-substantiated) statements, I've noticed.

[Guest]

Actually, the quote Dave Moon provides from the Standard Catalog of American Cars regarding the availability of a 300-hp "Wildcat 405" V8 in the 1960 LeSabre is accurate, even though 70 Electra and others are correct in pointing out it was a 364-cubic inch displacement engine. The statement in the Standard Catalog refers to the "marketing name" of the engine, not the displacement. Sometime around 1960 Buick began to identify their engines on the air cleaner and in sales brochures by their TORQUE rating, rather than by horsepower or displacement . In the case of the 1960 LeSabre, the optional "Wildcat 405 4-barrel High-Performance Engine" (quoting the brochure) was a 364 cubic-inch engine rated at 300 hp and 405 ft. lbs. of torque. This practice, continued by Buick into the mid-'60s, is why so many people will swear their dad had a "big Buick with a 445 in it." The "445" was the torque rating for the 401cubic-inch V8 for several years, including in 1960 ... the air cleaner decal read, "Wildcat 445" on these larger series engines. Perhaps it was Buick's way of of getting around the fact that competitors offered larger displacement engines ... the Chrysler 413, Lincoln 430, etc. Whatever the reason, this long-ago marketing decision is obviously still causing confusion four decades later!