We are all aware of the Cadillac-Buick-Olds-Pontiac-Chevy GM hierarchy, but my question is exactly what was done differently between, let's say, a Skylark or Cutlass and a Chevelle? Exactly where and how did GM build in an extra measure of quality into the Buick and Olds line that wasn't really in the others? I've either owned or spent time behind the wheel of enough B-O-P-C A-bodies to know that there really is a difference. My '67 Cutlass seemed much smoother and more refined than any Chevelle I've owned, including my current '70 Malibu. Was it the bushings, insulation, body mounts, suspension rates, interior materials? All of the above? Where did that extra feel of quality come from? Inquiring minds want to know.
Actually, in your example scenario, there where definitely shared components as between the A-body "sister" Division cars you reference - and that goes all the way back to the basic drawing boards when GM approved the frame design and basic body dimensions and design & engineering requirements, etc. So, this would mean all the dimensional "hard points" were shared across the Divisions for frame dimensions, body mounting points, body "hard points" like A-pillar/ firewall location, center floor pan, to give examples. Let me take a pause now to mention that in the general time frame which I am interpreting your question (i.e., the mid 60's to early 70's models) and describing automotive design & production activities necessarily has to be translated into design cycle timelines which are 3 to 5 years earlier than the introduction of the new models, here, the then new for '65 A-bodies and then new for '68 A-bodies (largely the same through '72 MY). I make this point because these years were CRITICAL and marked a turning point in GM's history when sharing of parts amongst the Divisions greatly expanded (and became the norm for future shared platforms) into the earliest design and engineering activities. Much before this time, there was some, but much less mass sharing or commonality of underpinnings (frames, suspensions, etc.). The examples of the '65 - '72 A-bodies are great examples for your question because we all know how many parts and systems actually are shared beyond the examples I gave above ... windshields, HVAC systems, some axles, some suspension components, some gas tanks, steering systems, some braking systems, many electrical parts, etc. To get back to answering your question, the list of parts and systems above certainly does not contain an exclusive list of shared parts, so the parts that are not shared between the Divisions are sometimes exclusive parts to 1 or 2 or 3 Divisions - not shared across the board. I know Buick spent considerable time with tweaking suspension settings (spring & dampener rates), body bushing composition, tire selection. I don't know if you know that Buick Engineers made the front frame rails on the '70 GS 455 models thicker than the other A-body variants. Also, Buicks had more/different sound deadener/insulation. I have read on more than one occasion in period articles (car reviews) about perceptible differences in driving comparisons of Buick and Olds (in particular) vs Chevrolet and Pontiac models. This in not intended to be a slight in any way .... figure that Buick had a bit more $$$ to work with in its development and production (per vehicle transaction price) than Chevrolet did (though the absolute volume leader for sure). Of course, there were some differences in the optional equipment offered as well - though relatively minor. The last thing I'll mention is that I have read that there, at the time, existed a sort of hierarchy amongst the various production lines of the Divisions. I am not sure how GMAD played into this, but a line worker did not generally start at Cadillac- he had to work up to it. And so-on down the GM hierarchy. If that's true, then there probably would be (at some level) a slightly different worker as between the lines of the Divisions. While I have heard this, I don't have any evidence or proof - note that GMAD plants built 'em side-by-side (though according to each Divisions' own specific assembly instructions).
I don't know what specifically was done, but I do know in that hierarchy list Cadillac was supposed to be the best and Chevy lets say the most common/affordable. Obviously it wouldn't look good if they built Chevys that were nicer/more comfortable than Cadillacs. There had to be more to it than just marketing. I'm assuming GM executives had some rules on what each division could and could not do in order to maintain the hierarchy. For example there was the rule that John Delorian famously broke of not putting big motors in intermediate cars.
They had different core supports and transmission frame mounting differences that contribute to the feel of the car.
GM long held to the philosophy that if you paid more, you should get more. Many items - some extremely minor were different in the less-expensive GM models. The classic example is three portholes on the mid-50's Buick Specials and four on the senior cars. Buick went to the trouble of downsizing the 322 V8 to 264 inches just for the Specials. It would have been cheaper to install the existing 322, but then there wouldn't have been the performance difference between the special and the Century. In 1954 and '55 the Olds Dynamic 88 had a painted center and passenger side dash insert; the Super 88 and the 98 had the same inserts, but they were chrome plated. What is not widely known is that actually all of the Olds inserts were Chrome, but Oldsmobile went to the trouble of painting over the chrome in the base 88 so that the Super 88 looked fancier. I suspect that there were many more minor differences between cars as the price point ascended. It would not be hard for me to believe that the pricier cars got better (or at least different) body mounts and things of that sort then Chevrolet and Pontiac.
To add to Hawken's post, it was the A-Bodies that heralded in the practices he mentions, meanwhile the B-Body cars stayed proprietary (tho that too would begin to erode). Cadillac was certainly well 'insulated' from the rest of GM, having it's own singular plant (until the early '70s, I believe), it's own paint palette, etc. I also agree that his calling the mid '60s a 'critical turning point at GM' is entirely correct. I have a '59, have taken it down to body-off. There are small bits that I know interchange; stamped covers for the trunk torsion bar ends, the door release mechanisms the handles spline onto, window regulators, 2-dr rear armrests, manual master cylinder, blower motor... lil things like that (not many more). Greenhouse glass/trim is largely interchangeable, and the front floor pan, front seat frame, firewall, and the 2-dr doors interchange. But that's close to it. Unique gas tank, frame, engine, trans, rear, brake lines, body stampings below the beltline, dash substructure, entire front clip, gas & brake pedals, suspension, etc.
I just want to add and clarify a point .... there is nothing in my post above (as a response to the question in the original post) which is intended to or should be taken to "look down" or slight any other GM makes within the discussion. Although I identify with Buicks and Olds more than the other GM Divisions, make no mistake, I love 'em all and appreciate all that GM built back then because there were some really special cars brought to market by Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile & Buick.
I've heard that Buick used insulators on the trans crossmember frame mounts but I've never seen them, and I don't have a Skylark assembly manual to check. I know the Cutlass mounted the trans crossmember directly to the frame like my Chevelle, only it was more of a flat stamped steel piece vs the Chevy tubular crossmember. Hawken's mention of sound deadener/insulation and frame thickness is also very interesting. As I find myself using my Chevelle more and more these days, I want to address the areas that affect NVH, as this really adds to the driving experience for me. I figured a good starting point would be to start with what GM did over 50 years ago to address this, and go from there.
I have two '67 GM A bodies... a 67 GTO (Kitty) and a 67 GS400 (Birdie). When I was a little shaver, the Buick mantra was "When better cars are built, Buick will build them". Almost gospel. That said ,Kitty came stock with much more bling than Birdie. Wide stainless rocker panel molding slathers Birdie from nose to tail. Bright(aluminum on hardtop/coupe, stainless on convertible) reveal moldings. Bright aluminum crosshatched grills. A passenger grab handle. Stainless wheel well trim. Sun visors anchored at both ends. The rocker, wheel well and reveal molding brightwork came at extra cost on the Buick. All GS400s had a boxed frame. Only GTO convertibles had boxed frames as stock build. 67 GTOs had bolted rear seat arm rests opposed to the GS400's "shelf". GS400's sunvisors were only secured at the outboard ends. The GTO came with more standard "flash" at a lower price point. So,it appears that Buick spent their bucks on the frame, not on bling. No matter which way you slice, dice ,cut or carve the different GM divisions they were different enough from each other that fierce brand marque loyalty was an American fact of life when it came to our cars. And still is...50 years later. Don't you love it?!
Never drove an f41 equipped buick but my 72 skylark custom with monroe gas shocks drove amazingly well. I have read more than once that the Buick drives noticeably better than Chevy, Pontiac or Olds.
And don't forget aluminum brake drums. Buick spent more on brakes....clearly something that they became known for as a brand.It had to raise costs but they did it acrosss their models...
My 72 for sure had rubber isolators on the crossmember.....it was about .250ish thick all the way around and just slid over the ends........then had a metal square u shaped bracket that encapsulate the rubber on all side but the inboard that bolted to the frame on the inside. Was kind of a pain in the ass to fit in actually
I know that with rear drive cars in the 70s and 80s the higher up the ladder you went the more structural bracing GM used. Bars that triangulate flex points on the frame, connecting the radiator support to the fenders, front clip to cowl and on Cadillacs frame rails to front sheet metal. I think Buick also paid more attention to things between the hard points like ‘how stiff will this hood design be?’ ‘Does our body design provide a stiff structure?’ ‘How many fasteners and bumpers should we use to attach the front sheetmetal?’. Patrick
Also the 70-72 Skylark front fenders are unique. They used a special rolling process to get the nice edge. Only issue is that hard to reproduce....special tooling was involved.
Mark, thanks for the crossmember picture. It's the many little things like that insulator that add up to a higher feeling of quality. Does anyone know if anything different was done in the dash area? I just remember the dash in my '68 Chevelle and '76 Camaro would bounce up and down when it came to potholes or even worse when the clutch started to chatter. Sometimes I thought that Camaro dash would end up in my lap. I never got that feeling with my Cutlass or the many T/A's I drove. I have to say the quality difference between comparable Firebirds and my Camaro was astonishing. They felt like bank vaults to me, my Camaro definitely did not. And they were only 3-4 year old cars at the time with similar mileage.
...heavy car + Dynaflow = frequent brake jobs. Customers were conditioned to expect that, it took years for "are you sure?" regulars to believe improvement from finned aluminums. As for thread topic, evolution from division autonomy to corporate control became obvious in '70s IMO, and was influenced by retirement of post-WW2-era leadership and staff...
Actually it was the Roger Smith era (1981-1990) That caused the decline of GM. During this period, GM's market share declined from 45% to 35%.
