One could argue that a faded black 1960 Buick convertible, in top-down mode, projects a pretty reasonable Batmobile bearing. Today’s Long Beach, California discovery, likely a LeSabre (hard to tell as the badging has been removed), presents in before-and-after form, and I can say with certainty that it cleaned up pretty well. Its powertrain configuration, however, is a bit unusual for what was considered a premium ride. Follow along and we’ll delve into this imposing, stand-out convertible. It’s available, here on craigslist for $19,900.
In ’60, Buick offered three different convertibles: the Le Sabre (13,500 units), Invicta (5,200 copies), and the top dog duece and a quarter, AKA the Electra 225 (6,700 items). All told, Buick came in ninth place (253K cars) in the ’60 production race, having dropped two slots from its seventh-place 1959 ranking.
The seller of this outsized ragtop (218″ in length and tipping the scale at 4,400 lbs.) tells us that he’s owned it for almost twenty years but it has sat, cooling its heels for many years. Some of the images display the car in “stored” form, revealing lots of slumber dust, but the “cleaned up” images reveal a car that possesses a decent finish with still bright chrome plating and shiny trim. As noted earlier, the badging and “portholes” (ventiports?) have been removed. The listing states that a new soft top is needed and if you peruse all of the images, you’ll note that none reveal a folding top in the raised position – this one’s open-air all of the way!
The “Wildcat 375” decal on the air cleaner tells us that this rag top runs with a 235 gross HP, 364 CI “nailhead” V8 engine that grunts out 375 lb. feet of torque. The seller tells us, “Runs. The Buick nail head V8 engine was rebuild (sp) back then, but it was not driven much after.” I guess the “back then” was sometime around the acquisition but before parked status set in. While most Buicks from this era employed a Dynaflow automatic transmission, called “Turbine Drive”, the original owner of this black beauty specified the standard manual three-speed gearbox – how unusual!
Another noted need is the interior as you can note, this topless Buick looks like a sale kiosk for Mexican blankets. Originally upholstered in what Buick refers to as “smart cordovans”, one must wonder if the lack of a top dumbed down those cordovans long ago. It’s hard to say and doesn’t really matter at this point, but a lot of upholstery work is going to be needed. The dash, finished in what looks like a sparkling merlot hue, and the era’s typical elaborate instrument panel still present well. As for the door and upholstery panels, no images are provided.
The seller suggests, “Rare 3 on tree car !!!” and I imagine that is a rare configuration, even more so today, 64 years later. Is it rare enough, however, to make a difference in valuation? I doubt it but the lack of a top and an acceptable interior will make a difference, and not a positive one in my estimation, how about yours?
It certainly is unusual, and as Rick Harrison sez, rare doesn’t always mean valuable. The stick in a car like this will surely be a deterrent. It does show to go ya’, even by 1960 some people still didn’t trust an automatic. Cost certainly wasn’t an issue here. While manual transmissions were still popular in lesser cars as it was a hefty option. I’d bet the folks “on the line” laughed about this one. I read, less than 1500 1960 Buicks had a manual trans, and they sold over 1/4 million cars that year. In that regard, it’s rare, but nobody in the future is going to want to row through the gears in this grand car.
Another point to ponder is when the time comes and I’m sure real soon when it’s going to need a clutch assembly good luck finding parts.
Howard’s right. The 3-speed misses the whole point of a car like this. I wonder if you could swap in a TH 400. Even a Dynaflow would work…my Riviera runs just great with the Dynaflow.
I agree, the manual 3 on the tree isn’t very desireable on this 60 Buick land yacht.. 4 speed manuals on later 60s muscle cars are definitely more desireable. But not here. Love the older Buick nailheads. I can’t even see the frame for the drop top, surely it’s there. That along with no interior, definitely affect its valuation. The fins on this 60 Buick look great.
Three-on-the-tree – unusual for a Buick but pretty much standard on the likes of my ’59 Biscayne 283, 2-dr sedan …
That Craigslist “needs interior reupholstery” means you can forget getting any tacos (or salsa) on those Mexican blankets now covering the seats. They still keep you hungry. Until replaced.
Horrible bulky transmission, clunky shifter on the column, these cars were luxury rides, not Chevy Biscaynes
The synchromesh three speed box is tiny compared to the dynaflow. I’ve got a 59 LeSabre convertible with synchromesh.
Gotta agree. A clutch is one pedal too many. The other Lesabre conv. listed doesn’t show a top as well. That would keep a closed transporter in business.
I prefer the manual transmission. All my cars (except my Nomad) are manual. Unfortunately I’m not buying right now and if I was, there are other models higher on my list. So this would have to be a steal, which it isn’t. I see parts of the folding top frame in the boot.
A 3-speed manual transmission on a V-8 Buick makes it a totally different car from the Dynaflows. Pretty obvious that most of you guys have never driven one. You have no idea how much power the Dynaflow saps from the engine until you drive a stick shift V-8 Buick. They are incredibly quick, powerful, and responsive, plus you will approach or exceed 20 m.p.g. I know what I’m talking about. I have a 3-speed ’64 LeSabre that is a dream to drive. Have also owned a ’54 stick shift Special and a ’58 stick shift Special. The power and responsiveness is amazing.
That’s what I was thinking about it. My parents had a 53 Roadmaster with the Dynaflow when I was a kid and my mother swore off automatics after that car. Almost every car they bought since then (around 1960) was a manual. She just hated the delayed response from the Dynaflow, even with the V-8 engine.
@Phil
Really? I own a 1949 Buick with a dynaflow transmission. After I bought it I thought the transmission was bad because I couldn’t feel or hear it shift. Then a real old schooler (thank God you guys are still around) said it wasn’t. So I followed his recommendation and reduced my speed to 10-15 mph and shift it into low. Sure enough it downshifted into low or 1st gear. If I had taken it to a transmission shop I would have got shafted for real.
Nickname was “Dyna-Slow”.
AKA “Dynaslush.” Our ’56 Special had one and it was smooth and could be quick off the line if shifted into L for Low. The shift pattern was P-N-D-L-R and yes, you could go past low and into reverse at speed (I did it once).
As to manuals, in ’67 I was shopping for cars and found a ’65 Skylark convertible, red with a white top and three on the tree. I thought the manual trans wasn’t appropriate for that kind of car and passed on it. After thinking about it a day or two I changed my mind and returned to the lot, but someone had bought it. Still wish I had grabbed it.
Well, Pete, you are combining 2 worlds here. Most Buick then buyers couldn’t have cared less how much power the automatic tapped, just not having to shift was a luxury many take for granted today. Remember, in 1960, the automatic was still only several years out, and people paid a hefty sum for an automatic, many times, the most expensive option. Buick buyers were not misers. The only reason this car has a manual, and not cost savings, was the person who ordered it just didn’t trust automatics yet.
If the original purchaser was going from Long Beach to the mountains, having the clutch to control wheel spin would be an added bonus. I owned one car with a 3-on-the-tree and I have driven several others. The nicest was a Studebaker with overdrive – you could shift into second and the overdrive would kick in at 30mph by itself, effectively making the car an automatic in city traffic. The no-syncro first gear A-230 I had in my 1971 Satellite was a pile of metal filings four months after I bought the car as the car was to heavy to bring around corners in second with a 225 under the hood. Maybe with a big V-8 a three speed is more reasonable to drive.
Not totally out of character for their entry level car. If there’s one for every seat then someone bought it. After all Pontiac did manage to build 3 Grandvilles in ’71.
These are good looking cars. You could leave it the way it is and make it even more waterproof allowing the rain to run right out. That doesn’t have to be just a Jeep thing.
Older school GMs with full size cars like this do better with a Powerglide or similar automatics, from the mid 1960s. That’s more proper for this Buick.
Dynaflow was a non-starter to us teens in the ’50’s and ’60’s. You floored it, the engine reveved up, and the car eventually caught up to the engine. The mid-50’s “switch the pitch” Dynaflows were better, but still slushy.
Move the decimal two places to the left and I wouldn’t mind having it.
When I spotted a black ’60 Buick Le Sabre 2dr HT in a used car lot in 1965 I fell in love with it. What a mistake that was! The standard tranny would have been better cause I had to have the transmission rebuilt and finally replaced. The nailhead V8 started leaking gas into the oil pan (tell me how that can happen) and one night as I got home the fumes exploded and blew the gaskets out from under the valve covers. The oil light came on for all of 20 seconds before I got it shut down but I later collapsed a piston. I guess everyone has to own a lemon sometime but not one that costs more to keep on the road than it dies to pay off the loan. Still love the looks of them though.
The fuel pump diaphragm ruptures, is how you get gasoline in the oil pan. Had that happen on a ’63 T-Bird. Replaced the faulty fuel pump and began an oil change – the oil change overfilled the drain pan and ran all over the floor. 5 qts of oil and 4 qts (?) of gasoline in the sump. The 390 got a good cleaning out. LOL
Well, ricky, I’ve never heard of that. How does the gas from the pump get inside the engine? As an aside, on a trip from Regina to Montreal, we came back through the states and were almost home driving in North Dakota when the cast aluminum timing chain cover developed a leak and was pumping water into the oil pan. Got it fixed in Minot and made it home. Years later I discovered what cavitation means and why you never run without antifreeze. Hahaha — that was our honeymoon trip and the car outlasted the marriage after an engine replacement.
My59 LeSabre 2 dr hardtop would wind to about 75 in second before i shifted to third. Rearend must have been 2:00 to 1.
The trans was a cad -lesalle closed driveline from the thirties i think.
I loved that car,wish i still had it
There’s a reason that cars with automatic transmissions came standard with more horsepower. They felt that more horsepower was needed to overcome the power lost to the inefficient transmissions. If you are of the majority, and prefer an automatic, I’d recommend looking elsewhere. If you want (or don’t mind) a stick, here’s a rare opportunity to consider.
I just can’t understand why all the slagging on the Dynaflow. I’m not an expert on transmissions by any means, BUT, I do know that when I put my foot into that Riviera with the Dynaflow, the damn thing is a rocket ship. I mean it, the acceleration is incredible. And smooth. It’s more power than I could ever use, safely.
And mine is a car with original 110K mile engine, never been rebuilt, and also original Dynaflow, also never been rebuilt. It screams. And leaks….
Finally, at my age, I have no interest in rowing through gears in city traffic, when the car can do that for me!
Rex,
I’m with you on that point and Nelson I wouldn’t call it an issue just a choice or preference. Ask someone with bad knees their choice or preference. As a young kid I always wondered why my father and other older men wore loafer shoes. Some things don’t make sense to you until you become older and have to wear those shoes. But one ability none of us will not lack being able to do and that’s picking up money off the floor.
Thank you FROG.
I only comment on maybe 5% of the vehicles on this site, and only if I have any experience with those vehicles over the last 50 years of having owned a driver’s license. I try not to talk out my ass or ramble on, and I am respectful.
Usually, I try to be tongue-in-cheek goofy/funny, so I hope that translates.
Pinto? Still no. Happy Holidays from the compound.
Gentlemen, with due respect, let say that you and many commenters provide us all with insight and camaraderie through stories and solid advice that is appreciated by myself and others, I’m sure. Was not my intention to step on any toes.
We all come here as community and acquaintances with the course of time. Thank you all for sharing your knowledge and experience.
IMO, the transmission issue gives us a platform to form a contribution here. Not necessarily a bad thing in either respect. There are those who will always want a clutch and/or maximum engine whether it makes any logical sense or not. Same thing with those who have no use for a Chevette or Pinto but chime in with the POS comment while 8 or 10 others tell positive experiences with the same car. To each their own as there is no wrong or right. Only what we like and have lived.
We’re only here together for a short time. The least we can do is get along.
Merry Christmas.
This big girl needs a diet and also needs a complete redo , engine- transmission- suspension-brakes-, the whole works to the tune of many , many$$$$$$
I can only see this as a restomod car
For the amount of work it needs, way overpriced. Would make a fun beater/cruiser that you can fix as you can afford.