Fact or Fiction: Destruction of '54 Skylarks in Flint, 1954

[Centurion]

The first BCA National Meet I attended was the superb Buick 75th anniversary meet in Flint, 1978.

Among the many conversations I overheard was one relating to the 1954 Skylarks. The person speaking was recounting a story dating from 1954. He spoke as someone having first-hand knowledge of what he was saying, but I've often wondered whether anyone can corroborate the tale that he so convincingly presented.

He stated that Buick was expanding the Flint assembly complex in 1954, and there were some large roof trusses or roof beams leaning against an outer wall of the assembly plant. One of these roof trusses or beams fell on top of a row of just-completed 1954 Skylarks. Rather than repair all of the damaged Skylarks, Buick punctured their engines, transmissions, and fuel tanks and buried them in a big hole at some dumping site.

Has anyone else ever heard this story? Any truth to it, or is this simply a Buick "urban myth"? And, if it is true, were these destroyed Skylarks included in the production total of 836 1954 Skylarks?

[GSTURBO]

This is the first time I have heard that story. Norb

[Centurion]

Norb, thanks for the reply. No one I've mentioned this to in recent years is familiar with the story, so I'm guessing that it never happened.

[Highway_101]

I have an Uncle in Michigan who worked for GM for many years. I think he started working for them sometime in the 50's.....but I think he worked in an Oldsmobile assembly plant. He is coming to visit next month. I'll ask him if he ever heard anything about that.

[Pontiac59]

More than likely a car damaged in such a way as to total it at that time was either sold for parts, or more likely simply scrapped as would be a dream car that had outlived it's usefulness. So I'd suspect that while the roof truss story could be true, the 'buried in a big hole' bit is a rumor.

[brad54]

I don't know anything about this particular story, but from what I know about how the corporations do things, my vote is scraped. They wouldn't have been sold for parts--first of all, they wouldn't pay guys to disassemble them. Second, they wouldn't want to run the rist of sending possibly damaged parts out the door.

My dad had to scrap out a couple warehouse full of parts for AMC--radios, tires, radiators, sheetmetal--all hit with big hammers or punctured and thrown in the dumpster.

I know a guy here in Atlanta who got a call from the local dump where the Chevrolet Doraville plant sent their scrap--his contact told him a whole load of big block cranks had been brought in that day, and he burried them real shallow. My buddy snuck in at night and loaded up his truck. He owned an engine building shop, so this was a big score. The first engine he built with one of the cranks seized up. He tore it down, and everything was welded together. Same thing with the second crank he used.

Before sending the cranks out the door, they were all magnetized. Anyone know what happens when you spin a 454-cubic inch magnet? It produces electricity--enough to arc weld at a few thousand RPM. These were good cranks, but all magnetized, turning them in to junk.

If girders fell on the Skylarks, they're either in a land fill or are a Chinese tank.

-Brad

[Pontiac59]

If they were sold for parts, they would be sold intact to a salvage operator who would do the dismantling. Today, auto manufacturers tend to simply scrap most vehicles such as those damaged in transit, or they donate them to schools to be used as teaching aids for auto tech classes. When they become obsolete, they have to be scrapped - they get labeled with stickers that they can never be used on the road.

Magnetizing is somewhat farfetched, although not hard to do - but it is also not a big deal to demagnetize things either.

[Highway_101]

I visited with my uncle today who began working for GM in 1955. I asked him what he thought of the possibility of GM burying damaged cars. He thought it unlikely and said they would probably have crushed them.

Just my (his) two cents worth

[Mrbuick714]

I worked for Buick many years,and offer this conclusion. They sold all cars as "new",or scrap. You would not want a new car which had been extensively damaged,nor would anyone else.

[55PackardGuy]

There is a good reason for a company to render all parts of a product useless after some parts (such as car bodies) are damaged: tax writeoffs. In order to write off the entire loss, they would have to prove that they could not profit from ANY part of the car and that all assembly costs as well as the future value of selling the completed product could be written off. If they were to try to salvage and sell parts of the car, it would immediately become more complicated, and the cost of salvage, including disassembly, would probably not offset any gain that might be realized from selling the parts. Also, there would be a question of liability for the safety and performance of the parts once they reached an end-user, since a salvage dealer could attempt to sell them as "new."

The cleanest solution would probably be to "deep-six" valuable parts such as engines and transmissions, write them off as a loss, and crush the rest.

There is also a tale I've heard of a bunch of '73 Camaros that were disposed of in a similar way after they were found to fall short of a federal regulation.

Whether there is "proof" for how this type of thing is managed by manufacturers I don't know, but there would seem to be a reasonable motive to do it the way the "legends" describe.

[Guest 53and61]

Forgive my party-pooping skepticism, but I think that the story that Brian heard is a classic urban legend. A nice Aussie www site on the subject, http://www.ulrc.com.au/, offers the following definition:

"An Urban Legend is usually a (good / captivating / titillating / engrossing / incredible / worrying) story that has had a wide audience, is circulated spontaneously, has been told in several forms, and which many have chosen to believe (whether actively or passively) despite the lack of actual evidence to substantiate the story."