1979 Buick Skyhawk Hatchback 231 V6 (3.8 liter)
Summary:
A generally satisfactory car, which would have really excelled if only it were more fun to drive!
Faults:
The clutch and pressure plate went out at approximately 30000 miles with the 4-speed manual transmission.
No other major malfunctions.
General Comments:
This car was just begging to be hopped up! The 231 V6 was a late-1970s smog engine, so it was predictably anemic. In my unofficial acceleration test, I got a 0-to-60 time in just over 13 seconds. (Given the 3300 pound weight of car+driver, this works out to about 120 horsepower.)
At the time I owned this car, the great potential of the 3.8-liter engine was just being tapped into by hot-rodders. It was no exaggeration that nearly 200 horsepower was achievable with only a handful of relatively inexpensive modifications. Ah, but if I'd only had the time...
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 4th August, 2007
21st Sep 2009, 21:55
I had a 1977 Skyhawk and really loved it. I put in a hotter cam, 9:1 pistons, intake manifold and a Carter 4bbl, along with lower springs and bigger sway bars. It was a fun car until rust got the better of it by '85. Corrosion was a big problem on the H bodies with their curved in doors and fenders.
17th Dec 2010, 11:00
I had a 1979 Buick Sky Hawk S. It was the first car I ever owned. Bought it brand new for a little over $6,000. I loved that car. As it aged, it showed it more so than the competing imports like Toyota. It used to go through tires like oil changes.
Overall, it was a fun car to drive.
I love seeing pics of the 1979 Skyhawk on the web. Takes me back... way back.
5th Aug 2007, 16:27
You sure don't see many rear wheel drive Buick Skyhawk's or any of the H-body cars built from 1975-80, I think they're one of GM's most underrated cars and I feel they deserve more recognition than what they get.