For everyone lambasting Adam for calling the Corvair motor an inline 6, give him a break. I’m certain he knows this fact, just as he knows way more about 1960s and 1970s American cars than most of us ever will. Instead, appreciate the fact that he takes the time to share his knowledge, and does so in an interesting and engaging manner. Come back when you can say with certainty that you never make mistakes.
My parents bought a 61 Buick Special. During the test ride . At a light the car was so quiet, dad thought the car died and he tried to start it, but it was already running. I took my drivers text in it. I loved the power steering, one finger driving. I wish I had one now.
I remember one of my dad's friends left his Buick with the aluminum V8 at our house while he went to Vietnam. We really liked that car and in the early to mid 70's me and my friends tried to buy one but looking all over the Phoenix AZ area we couldn't find one to buy. Nobody would sell one if we found one. But we did find two 69 Pontiac Tempest with the overhead cam six cylinder, those were very nice cars that got good gas mileage and were plenty fast enough.
The 215 c i Buick engine was/is legendary here in the UK. As well as being used in many of Rover´s higher end vehicles such as the P5B (B denoting the engines Buick origins) , Rover 3500 and the SD1 it was found in many low volume British manufacturers of the time.
I love these cars so much, they just look so sleek and crisp, with good clean styling after the excessive (albeit handsome) full size models from Buick in the late 50s. The GM senior compacts, and even as they evolved into intermediates, were really fantastic cars that were a good size. We all love the big full size boats, sure, but these were a very reasonable size for your typical commuting driver or small family sedan needs. I would absolutely love to own a spear point 61 Skylark, with the two-tone painted roof.
While living in Anchorage, my grandfather purchased a '62 Special Wagon which he really enjoyed for 8 years, before replacing it with a '70 Sportwagon. He appreciated the size and power of the Special wagon and always said it was one of his favorite cars.
Thank you so much for this video Adam. My 95 year old father said his 1962 Skylark was his favourite car. And he had a 68 Riviera and a 1980 Riviera after this. GM should never have sold the all aluminum V-8 engine. Had manufacturing been more developed, it would have been much better than the Northstar.
My uncle had a gold 62 Cutlass from 2005-2009 ish. That engine shot with the gold unibody brought back some instant memories. Those cars are sweathearts but the engines do require a gentle foot and a keen wrench if I may say so. I am more of a fan of the 64-65 Skylark with the full width taillight and long body molding…. a car to me is one that is simply the definition of beauty.
My love is the V6 that Buick introduced in 1962. I especially loved the "throb" of the odd firing design. I believe GMC introduced a V6 in their light duty trucks around this time also. Maybe you could do a video on GM's V6 engines in a future episode. As always, a stellar performance from you.
Back in the 70s, I overhauled a 215 v8 for my buddies skylark convertible that he had bought new. Even back then it was difficult to obtain oversized pistons although other parts were still available. It was not easy to find someone to rebuild the transmission either as parts were also scarce and it was considered an oddball. But it all worked out and he drove it for several more years before selling it.
The 1961 Skylark was the first car that I purchased with my own money. I thought at the time it was much better put together than pre-1963 Ford Falcons.
A friend has a 1962 Skylark coupe with power windows, a feature I would not have expected to be available on a compact of that period, common enough though it may have been on the largest Buicks.
My sister got a ‘62 Skylark coupe in 1970 to replace her first car, a ‘61 Rambler Cross Country. After the lumbering Rambler, the Buick felt like a sports car. The transmission went out after a couple of years and she replaced it in ‘72 with a brand new Gremlin. I got through most of my college career driving a ‘61 Buick Special wagon with the 4 speed floor mounted manual. Being a California native I was not familiar with the way rust could ravage a car, but that New Jersey origin Buick taught me. I finally stopped driving it after a rear shock absorber mount broke on the freeway.
I loved both the 1961 full-size and compact Buick designs. They were a huge leap forward compared to the 1959 and 1960 models and unfortunately only lasted a single model year. I would love to own a restored ‘61 Buick Invicta convertible.
Those '61 Buicks were beauties, I agree. I think like all the '61 GM full-size cars the LeSabre and its siblings were clean and yet distinctive, and so much less cumbersome in comparison to the previous (and post-'62) full-size GMs.
Enjoyable video, well presented. My dad, a "Buick Man", ordered a '62 Skylark with a 215, bucket seats, and "four on the floor". Quite a departure from the usual big Buicks. It was "sporty" and "peppy" 🙂. Terrible steering, suspension, and brakes...but that was the way things were back then. While you mention "61 Skylark" numerous times I think all of your pictures are actually 1962 cars. The '61 cars had different tail lights as I recall.
My parents had a 61 f85, base version with the 215 and a 3 on the tree. Many fond memories of my dad cussing it out as he could not master taking off from a start with that manual, esp on a hill. Eventually it blew a head gasket - I think they ran it out coolant and warped one of the heads, probably out of spite. Lol. The only family car I remember dad hating…if only he had sprung for the auto, he would have enjoyed it a lot more
That 215 aluminum V-8 was an interesting engine. An aunt had a ‘63 Olds F-85 which I drove when I first got a license in 1970. At idle, when it was newer, it was so smooth and quiet, you couldn’t hear the engine running while sitting in the front seats. It was pretty peppy, but partly due to strictly in-town driving and probably inadequate care, the engine started using huge amounts of oil, and ended up with water in the oil, as well as gasoline. It was overhauled, but it didn’t help much. The engine would build up huge amounts of carbon, presumably due to being driven in town. It Also had the roto hydramatic transmission, which you’ve discussed before. Very strange driving experience. I took it out on the interstate occasionally to attempt to blow out the carbon, which helped temporarily, but not for long. Not one of Oldsmobile’s better products.
Adam - a suggestion - I wonder if you could do a video explaining how these early General motors compacts were able to use the same platform with such a massive variety of powertrain set ups? It’s hard for me to wrap my brain around the rear engine (Corvair) the rear transaxle, the front transmission, plus all the other variations of engines, were all managed to be built on one platform!
GM was one of the few companies to master such a feat. They pulled off something similar with the 1st and 2nd generation Toronado, Eldorado and Riviera, with the Rivieras being RWD and the other two FWD. GM actually had a history of this sort of thing, with its '50s Buicks having torque tube rear suspensions, while the Olds and Cadillac cars which shared the body shells had Hodgekiss drive and 4 link rear axles. The Chevy and Pontiac cars, which had similar, though sometimes narrower body shells, still had leaf springs in the 1950s. Even the frames differed radically in the late 1950s, with Olds going right to a full-perimeter frame while Buick, Cadillac and Chevy had varying versions of the (in)famous X-frame under common body shells. I believe that caused the Olds to have more front legroom than similar sized Buicks in 1958.
I'm not doing a view-a-thon of your channel but have certainly enjoyed many of your uploads since discovering you a few days ago. Since I subscribed at that time many are offered in the suggestions panel to the right of my browser. Great content and plenty to reminisce about from my 66 years of having a license. 👍
It's interesting to note that the Oldsmobile version of that GM aluminum 215 ci V8 was the basis of (in highly modified form) the Repco-Brabham 3.0L F1 engine used in 1966 that took Jack Brabham to the F1 Driver's Championship. Repco (an Australian auto parts manufacturer) designed and built single overhead cam heads for the engine along with other strengthening features. At 300 hp, it was not as powerful as the F1 competitor engines but was lighter, more reliable, easier to repair and alot more fuel efficient.
Adam , excellent as always! Another note: the tooling of Olds 215 was sent to australian subsidiary Holden and a local parts distribuitor named REPCO devoloped racing hardware for it. When FIA/FISA changed the capacity of Formula 1 from 1.500 cc to 3.000cc - 183 c.i. - sir Jack Brabham together with REPCO developed a racing engine that won the titles In 66 and 67. There some material about this In some sites. I Think the name of the engine was RB-211 . Therefore GM hás 2 F-1 world titles indirectly!!
Adam you did not mention the 58 Rambler American that came out during the Recession of 1958. This was an American compact car that came out before the Big 3s and actually contributed to the Big 3 to introduce their own compacts. Also the 62 Chevy II is an important car because when the Corvair was not selling as well as the Falcon Chevy rushed the Chevy II from design to production in 18 months one of the quickest cars to be brought to production from inception.
@agoodlife2 The A body change was 1964. Special, Special Deluxe, Skylark all changed. In 1965 they had the GS option on the Skylark. 1966 was another body change. In 67 the GS became its own model due to the new 400 motor.
Hello Adam, thanks for sharing this interesting video about the early F85, Tempest, Special & Corvair!!! I always enjoy learning about automotive history!!! 👍👍
A well-done post - these GM compacts don't get enough coverage. They're beautifully styled adaptations of bigger themes, well-built, marketed at the right time, and GM gave each brand enough autonomy to build-in progressive engineering....like the Aluminum V-8 and Oldsmobile turbocharger. I especially like that GM was open-minded in marketing bodystyles.....coupes, wagons, 4 doors sedans and convertibles. Who knows, if they'd had more confidence in the market segment and considered Ford shifting the Ranchero to the Falcon body, they might have made a really neat Tempest 'Camino'...?
I own a 1963 skylark convertible with the 215 v8. All original barnfind. Parts are hard to find and expensive but the feeling of a v8 convertible with wind blowing in your hair during a cruise or parade is priceless.
The Skylark was really very nicely trimmed inside - better than you would get in a base LeSabre or arguably even an Invicta. In a way these were prequels to the 70's Cutlass Supreme, Regal coupes - smaller cars you could show up in but not be considered 'cheap' or otherwise disadvantaged.
Another great history of a technically interesting car. These cars really don't get me all that excited but the Skylark was arguably the best looking compact of all the GM divisions.
My first registered car was a 68 Skylark. I really liked the way it drove. It had transplanted 67 340 4 bl. Sometimes the secondaries would stick open and I had to open up the carb with a screwdriver and free it. Anyway, my next car was a 71 Skylark.
My parents' '71 Skylark 4-door sedan with the 350 V-8 was probably my family's nicest car. Never had a problem with it (until it was totaled in a head-on collision in '78). But a 1979 Consumer's Guide Used car book criticized that era of Skylarks for their "clumsy maneuvering," which made me wonder how much its handling would have differed from a body-mate Malibu or LeMans or Cutlass.
@@70sleftover My 71 was a 4 dr also and yeah the Skylarks cornered neatly and handled well. I have to say though my best handling 70's car was my 74 El Camino (basically a Chevelle in the front).
I am laughing because the gold 61 Skylark in one of the photos is actually a car I went to look at but did not buy. I recognize several of these from different ads for cars for sale a few years ago, the brown one and black one in particular. A 62 Skylark was the first new car my folks bought. They liked it so much and it was such a good car for them that they drove it all the way until 1981, at which point it was replaced with another Buick. I do not know the exact final mileage but I do know it was over 150,000 miles, which was unheard of at the time. We never had any problems with the engine or the automatic transmission. I don't remember rust being much of an issue either. It seemed like we were the only people in 1981 who still had a car this old. My folks were sold on Buicks because of this car and continued buying them for many years. The 62 was the perfect car for my mother because she did not like a very large car. This was a car she felt comfortable driving. It combined nice luxury features - mainly the interior and exterior styling, along with the respected Buick brand name. I personally think the exterior styling of these cars is superb. Just beautiful. It also wound up being a good car to have during the 1970s fuel crises, as it used less gas than a full sized car. I eventually bought a few of these cars and still own them. I never had issues with the engines or transmissions, or really any major mechanical issues with these cars. I'd have to disagree with the comment that the automatic transmission was not particularly durable, because that has not been my experience with these. I always thought GM and Buick could have done much more with these cars had they continued producing them - but I guess people did not want cars that were quite this small at the time. They are about the same size of a 1980s-1990s Buick Century / GM FWD A body vehicle. They restyled them in 1963 to be more slab sided, and lengthened the body slighty - to look more like 1963 full sized Buicks. When they went to the larger A body in 1964, that's when the sales of smaller Buicks took off. However, there is nothing not to like about the 61 - 63 models. They are quite appealing vehicles.
0:40 As a kid, we'd ride along on the freeways, and "count" Volkswagens. Whoever noticed one first won, or something like that. Those Beetles were pretty popular back in the '60s.
Dad's first new car was a 63 Buick Special with the V6 and a 3 speed manual column shifted transmission. The car was a aquamarine color and he had fond memories of it. He said he would get close to 27 to 30 mpg running on the highway. He's only complaint was the engine had a sticking valve on occasion. Part of our family lore...spring 1966, mom is expecting me but never got her drivers license since she refused to drive a manual transmission. So, one weekend afternoon, they went car shopping and picked up a 1966 Impala Sport Coupe...navy blue with a V8, automatic and air conditioning! The Impala was the first car I rode in..and there is a family picture of my older brother, me as an infant and my parents by the Chevy. Getting back to the Buick..it seemed the senior compacts evolved to midsize and continued growing....1964 to 67...68 to 72 and 73 to 77 when they would be downsized in 78. Of course the divisions did get their X cars like the Buick Apollo which turned into the Skylark about the same time GM reacquired the V6 from AMC which had no interest in it. I read somewhere that after the oil embargo, GM engineers found a V6 in a salvage yard and installed it in a new X car platform and were very pleased with the results.
Actually it's a much like the infamous Porsche 911, As long as were setting the record straight :). And Adam does do a great job with his material and I have learned much from watching his segments.
I like the video for the content. It is interesting how Skylark changed over the years and kept changing and was the "compact" Buick. It is interesting how the Cutlass name went on to great success and the Tempest name went to create the Pontiac GTO and be used years later on a Chevrolet Corsica clone the Canadian Pontiac Tempest. They used to have some really great names in the past. It is interesting these cars got larger over time as well. Thank you Adam.
Variety for Consumers was the best thing about those days...The Compacts didn't look as good as the larger models, but they certainly were interesting and probably much more fuel-efficient, which wasn't important then, as it is today....Easier to park and still had performance options if the consumer wanted, eh Adam😊👏
Sales in 1961 and to some extent 1962 were limited due to Buick's problems in producing the V8's aluminum block. One of the reasons for the iron block V6 was to get around the casting problems that limited V8 production.
Great video. I've actually never seen these cars before! My current driver is a Buick LaCrosse, but I've always loved the beak nosed '92 Skylark generation. So sad to see Buick only selling generic CUVs now. 😞 Same with Lincoln, which I've a couple of as well.
Holy smokes Matt. You just made over half of us feel terrible old 😢. You missed a great era in cars. Cars wrapped in paper with just a little bit removed at a time in the dealership show rooms. All though I’ll give you today’s cars are safer by a mile. You’ll never have another time. When cars had stylish lines and chrome. And good ole less than .40cent gas.
Good to see someone else sing the praises of the oft-maligned '90s Skylarks! I've had both a '62 and a '94 Skylark and loved them both. I'd love to get another '94 or '95 Skylark but finding one in good condition is proving difficult at best. Ironically I've seen more nice '62s for sale around SoCal, so maybe I'll just "settle" for one of those instead!
I used to love sneaking up to car dealerships at night when the new models were arriving in the showrooms every year and try to peak in between the whited out windows trying to get a peek at the new cars. Then I’d go to every dealer and collect every brochure on every model on the market and memorize every spec, measurement and option on everything on the market.
Great video, and good shots showing the different heads. But really the top ends were interchangeable. The Buick top end would bolt on the olds with mods what so ever. But the Buick block would need 8 holes drilled and tapped to install the olds heads, really not that hard to do. With the exception of the turbo the Buicks had slightly higher HP in both 2bbl and 4bbl. Oddly the Olds 4bb intake had larger bore openings, the intake/valley pan gasket was the same so it was an easy swap. Couple things might interest you, 61 and 62 had road draft tubes 63 was the first year for PCV valve. Also 61 and 62 had generators, 63 was the first year for the alternator.
My Father had a 63 Special and I always thought the 61-62 cars were better looking. What motivated GM to make such major changes to the body for a 1 year only model? The fact that it was a unit body must have made the changes even more difficult.
Great video. These were some of the best cars from GM in my lifetime. Super styling and innovative engineering. I remember that most imports of that era were inferior to these cars. 'English Ford', Renault Dauphine, VW Beetle, Hillman Minx, Fiats, BMW Isetta, etc.
My mother bought a '61 Buick Special station wagon new but only kept it for two years due to engine problems. She replaced it with a 1963 Chevy II wagon. My memories of the Buick are the novelty of the rear-facing back seat - not completely new by then, but the first such car my family had - and the one-piece swing-up rear gate, which my mother did not like.
Thank's for a great vid, I had Rover car's as a youngster Rover P5B,P6B and SD1 all with variants of the Buick V8, Great car's, I worked in an American spares shop 40 years back and you could get all sorts for these engines, Crane H214 cam,Holley 390cfm carb,HV0001 high volume oil pump gear conversion, dual plane inlet manifold,dual point distributor, back then this was a popular set up along with Cherry Bomb exhaust box/muffler,good old day's,when motoring was sweet and simple. Best wishes to the uploader,family,friends and fellow viewers,
Buddy of mine had a 215 Turbo Jetfire engine, complete with the turbo, the watermeth reservoir, carbs, etc. Was used at a technical school as a test-stand demontrator for a long time. He wanted to drop it in a gen2 Corvair, but he never got around to it.
Thanks for the education on these interesting cars. I'd never heard the term "senior compact" before. I became aware of GM's early '60's compact lines back when I had a full sized '63 Olds, and was intrigued by the aluminum V-8 powered F-85 that I saw in the shop manual for my car. I always thought of them as "mid-sized" rather than compact up to that point. I think about owning one now and then, but it's unlikely I'll have the time or money to devote to such an endeavor.
Thanks for the video. Always interesting. I love these "compact" cars from the early 60s from GM. The Ford Falcon and Mercury Comet too. I would love to own a vehicle with that 215 V8. Closest things I owned to these cars were two 65 Ford Fairlane 500s. One with the 289 and the other with the 200 six. Both great engines. I think the Fairlane was considered "mid-sized" though.
Not quite on topic, but the good-looking Bug intro was appreciated. As jr. eng I was on b-class flight home from Japan in '90s (, if you remember the business climate and fervor regarding Japan economy exploding). GM exec (~30yrs my senior) recounted being in conference with then prez of GM, circa '69, as he boasted that Toyota's rise in the mrkt had reached its zenith.
Interesting video, thanks. One correction, the Corvair engine was a horizontally opposed “flat” six cylinder, not an in-line six. The Rover version of the V8 was also developed by Leyland Australia into a 4.4 litre version for the P76 in the early 1970s.
The 215 was sold to Rover. They also found it more cost-effective to build the odd fire 198 V6 and in 1964 it was punched to a 225 V6 and sold to Jeep after 1967. Later it was bought back from AMC and made into the 3.8 V6.
The Corvair had a Horizontally Opposed Aluminum Air Cooled 6 Cylinder that was designed by Ed Cole, designer of the Small Block Chevy. You misspoke and called it an inline 6. I know you know the difference. I love your videos.
My grandmother drove a 1962 Buick Special Deluxe 4-door for many years. It was originally bought new by her son (my uncle) and handed down. I always thought it was a great and unusual car. It had that cute little dashtop clock and factory air conditioning. I'm not sure if either of those things worked by the time she got it. The aluminum transmission finally started having problems and they bought her a 1970 Skylark about 1977.
The early 60's American compact cars are just awesome. Mopar had their canted headlight cars, GM had these little gems. I don't know what ford had. Falcon maybe? Im not a big Ford guy. But I'd love to have an early 60's American car. Especially one of these compacts
These BOP compacts also used a styling theme that was toned down by all other divisions except Cadillac. Early clays for the 61 Chevy show horizontal fins almost as pronounced as on the 60 model.
Buick could have avoided a lot of trouble had they ALSO used an aluminum radiator! The aluminum heads and intake would be carried on for the 1964 only 300 V8, known as the Wildcat 310 or 355 depending on 2 or 4bbl carb (and compression ratio).
You pointed out a weakness among the cars in the 1950s and '60s: Overheating. There was something lacking with the engine cooling systems of those eras where the US automobiles [engines] had a predilection to overheat when scaling moderate to steep highway grades. The modern era of automobiles seem to have resolved that issue of engine overheating.
@@bloqk16 Yes. But I was referring to electrolysis. The copper scavenged the aluminum. People never have, and never will do proper maintenance on their cars.
I think the ’61 Buick full size are some of the prettiest cars they ever did. As far as the '61 senior compacts are concerned, I tend to favor the Pontiac but I think Old wins the styling war with their Cutlass.
I owned a '61 Buick Special in the late 1970s. It had aluminum heads, so I was worried it would be as bad as a Chevy Vega, but it turned out to be a good engine with no oil burning.
I had an F85 I purchased used just before going into the army around November of 1969. It had the 215 engine and the HydroMatic. It was gray with bucket seats and it always smelled of an oil leak probably hitting the exhaust manifold. It was an odd car. I’m tall but I felt I was sitting too low and the transmission shifted too quickly out of 1st and seemed 2nd to 3rd happened too quickly, as well. It was an 8 and was fairly torquey. Car and Driver said 0-60 was 14.5 seconds! When I returned from the army reserve training, I dumped that thing and bought a new 1970 Mustang fastback in a beautiful blue (not the Grabber blue) with a 302 and a 3-speed for $3000.
Cars just looked better then. with more character. Today's cars are safer, more efficient and better in many ways. But the looks of these cars can't be matched IMO.
It's weird how Buick, Pontiac, and Oldsmobile stopped producing compact cars in the mid 60s before reentering the compact segment in the early to mid 70s, as Chevy was successful with the Chevy II and Nova while the other brands were not producing compact cars.
Sales moved upscale in the mid-sixties from austere compacts as the economy improved and baby boomers entered the market. By '70, inroads by Japanese imports again jolted Detroit out of its myopia, furthered by the two gas shortages in the '70's. GM never built a decent compact: Corvair was a sales failure, these BOP intermediates weren't hot sellers, later the Vega laid an egg. Ford, with McNamara's austere Falcon (and Comet brother) sold extremely well, and were the underpinnings of the Mustang.
Those "senior" compacts were directly succeded by the A bodies. They thought the mid sizers would be still compact enough and to add a third car to the line up wasn't worth considering to them straight away.
When I was 4 or so, my grandmother had a 1959 or 60 HUGE 4 door Dodge or DeSoto. Two tone blue. It had a rope-like strap draped across the rear of the front seat, in two sections, for the passengers to grab on to. It seemed like a mile away from me while I was sitting back in the rear seat. My best friend's mom had a VW. I felt CLAUSTERPHOBIC sitting in the back seat of that POS. I noticed the pedals on the VW were like toy sized compared to my grandma's car pedals. If I recall, she had a push button automatic transmission as well. I noted the rear view mirror was mounted o the dash. I was also used to my dad's 1940 LaSalle and 1949 slope back Cadillac.
I remember these cars when I was a kid, but I never got to ride in one. I guess that aluminum V8 was relatively reliable? Wonder why GM didn't keep it. You mention that Olds used a version of this V8 in the Cutlass, but it sure looks different in your pictures. That Buick nail head V6 was really a nice engine. OMC used it in its stern drive engines, light weight, powerful, smooth and reliable. Even stood up in salt water applications.
Hi Adam, thank you for explaining the difference between compact vs senior compact vs mid-size GM cars. Ford had the identical thing in regards to the Ford Falcon that was compact as was the Chevrolet Corviar and the Chevy II/Nova. In the early 1960s, The Ford Fairlane and the Mercury Comet started out as a senior compact, not a full mid-size until 1966. Ford took note of the fact that the GM senior compact(s) became a full mid-size in 1964, and Ford had to something fast to be competitive. By the way, the Chevrolet Corvair was not an inline six, it was a horizontally opposed six engine, as is the Porsche 911. Please reply. Dave...
With only a very few exceptions in the Buick lineup over the years in comparison to Pontiac & Olds, it's hard to believe that they sold the number of vehicles that they did, given the other choices. In later years during the financial difficulties, it was nearly unbelievable that GM decided to ditch Olds & Pontiac and keep Buick. Certainly, each had their own "dud" years but overall it seems that Buick would have been the least likely survivor. Glad they're still here but sure wish that had more exciting current offerings.
I just read that they did, in fact, have Cast Iron sleeves. I was speed-reading to find out if the Skylark and the Oldsmobile F-85 had convertibles.....( I think they did offer a convertible ). Oh, and you meant '215' for the cubic inch displacement, not "251".
Yes, they had iron sleeves. They held up and ran well, I built a few. Never had overheating issues. Problems I had finding cores for was the heads. I don't know if it was DIYs or unknowing mechanics but a lot of sparkplugs were either stripped or cross threaded.
a 215 Is 3.6 L V8 Skylark had at least 1 V8 option until 1976 then after in 1980 it had 151.3 cubic in or 2.5 L Iron Duke 4 Cylinder and V6 engines up to 260.3 Cubic in or 4.3 L my late maternal grandmother drove a used 1984 Skylark from 1988 to 1990 which either had the Iron Duke 4 Cylinder engine or the Buick 231 Cubic In 3.8 L V6
Is this v8 the one they tried running with aluminium bores. The poms put in cast iron liners to get over this problem. This motor also came to Australia to power the Leyland P76 as a 4.4 litre V8 . The English kept using it as 3.5 litre in the Rovers and Land Rovers. I couldn't understand this as they kept trying to get more power with fuel injection etc as Range Rovers got bigger and heavier.
I had a 1962 Skylark two door pillarless coupe (hardtop) with the 11 to 1 compression, 4bbl 190 HP V8, bucket seats, factory A/C, power windows, brakes and steering. Too bad it was an automatic though. It was spritely bugger nonetheless. If I remember correctly, the 1961 two door only came in pillared form. I also had a 1962 Corvair 4 door with a manual transmission. What a POS. The Skylark was like a limousine in comparison.
