Buick Series 80

[West Peterson]

I would like to know why the Buick Series 80, which shares the engine with the Series 90, does not enjoy Classic status. It cost a lot more than a similar Auburn, and was certainly a quality-built car. Has there been discussion on this before? If so, why was the 80 left out when the 90s were let in? Certainly not because its wheelbase was a little shorter???

[Matt Harwood]

I thought both the 80 and 90 series Buicks were full Classics? My friends are displaying a 1940 Buick 81C (Limited convertible sedan) at the Glenmoor Gathering in Canton, OH this weekend, and I think it is also CCCA event. According to them, this car has been granted full Classic status. They specifically wanted to finish the car for this event because their gorgeous 1941 71C Roadmaster convertible sedan is not eligible as it is not a Classic.

[West Peterson]

I was thinking of the earlier 1930s cars, but to move up to the 1940s (by the way, the Limited is considered Classic), the Series 60 AND 70 used the same engine as the 90. So why isn't that Roadmaster Classic?

As John said in a different post, if you're going to call the hogs, you gotta call 'em all. (This is NOT to imply that Buicks are hogs )

What got me started on this rant is a 1933 Series 86 for sale in another post. I sure would like to see that accepted as Classic.

[JLee]

Before I jump into this with both feet, let me say that I am a Buick afficionado and have been for many years. I have owned more Buicks from the Classic Era (not all Classics) than any other make except Cadillac. I have owned Buicks from every model year from 1925 through 1948 except for 1941 and 1946. The earliest Buick I have owned was a 1912 and the newest (as a collector car) was 1967. I like Buicks.

For the sake of accuracy, all 90 Series Buicks from 1931 through 1942 and the 1940 80 Limited are listed as Full Classic. The 80 Limited of 1940 sort of slipped in primarily because of the Limited name attached to it, in 1995. It is virtually the same car as the 1939 80 Roadmaster. The 80 Series Buicks, 1931 through 1933 and 1936 through 1939 have been considered several times in the past several decades, the most recent for the 1936-39 cars was in 2002 and the 1931-33 cars were again discussed at the June 2005 Classification Committee meeting.

I'm not going to try to explain away the 1940 80 Limited other than to say that I believe if it were to come to the Committee today, it would not be approved. The Buick 80 Series cars are handsome, powerful and a good value then and now. There are a significant group of cars that were marketed at a point just under what the CCCA lists as Classic Cars. Some have been included on the List of Approved Cars, such as the Auburn eight-cylinder cars. These include such cars as the Chrysler Imperial(not the Crown or Custom models), Lincoln Zephyr, LaSalle from 1934 through 1940, Packard 120, Cadillac 60 and 61 and the Buick 80. These are all good cars that sold well. Theerein lies part of the problem. One of the points of consideration for Full Classic status, (along with such things as equipment and specification, price, and marketing) is production. Production for the models listed above total over 900,000 units. The total for all Full Classic cars built from 1925 through 1948 is less than 1.5 million.

The Classic Car Club of America is all inclusive when it comes to people; anyone with the interest is invited to join. The Club is not all inclusive when it comes to the cars that are celebrated. The models included on the Approved List are (with few exceptions) the very finest that each manufacturer had to offer. Does that make it any easier to try to explain to my good friend why his 1937 Roadmaster convertible sedan is not a Classic? Hardly. What it comes down to is this: The CCCA has chosen to focus on a specific group of cars built during a small era of automobile history. There will always be cars that are near the line of acceptance. If that line is moved, then another group of cars will be near the line. The Club has traditionally been very careful about moving that line.

I hope this helps explain some of the situation.

Jon Lee, Chairman, Classification Committee

[Matt Harwood]

Thanks for that excellent explanation, Jon!

[West Peterson]

Thanks, Jon, I know it's not an easy job making the selections.

I suppose the six-cylinder Peerless was rejected for the same reason?

[Buicksplus]

Rule, based on my observation of the classification committee:

There will be no additional "production" cars in the 1925-28 era given CCCA classic status that do not currently have it.

The only exception to that rule that I have seen in the last few years are for correction of obvious errors of ommission, where virtually identical cars of different years, one with undisputed classic status and the other not. The 36-39 Buick 80 does not qualify for this, because as Jon points out, the 1940 80 series Limited was considered a glitch.

I can't think of the last time a production car was given classic status, since the Cad 62. I am sure a few very rare production models squeaked through (large series 1931 Nash, perhaps), but hardly enough to see.

I was a member of the CCCA for many years (I had a 39 90 series Buick) but I did not renew several years ago, mainly because of this policy.

Bill, NM

[K8096]

I'm sorry that was the reason you didn't rejoin, but the reality is that as time marches on, people are getting more interested in "average" cars. Did many people give a hoot about Lincoln Zephyrs in the 1970's? Or how about the 1934 - 1935 LaSalle's? Or the Gardener? I think what has happened is that as younger people enter the scene, they find that they can't afford a real "Full Classic" so they buy something of good quality, but just below classic status, and then complain why their car isn't in the club. Come on, when you think of a Classic Car, do you really think of an 80 series Buick? I understand everyone can't afford a Packard Twelve or a V 16 Caddy, but there are lots of Classic 1920's & 30's cars out there in decent shape for under 20K if you take the time to look. How about a 1928 - 1932 Cadillac V-8 5 passanger sedan? Or a Model L Lincoln sedan? There are lots of these out there in good, largely original condition reasonably priced. They both have the "Classic look." Open fenders, sidemounts in most cases, chrome (or nickel) radiator shell with large, intimidating headlights. Does a 1940 Buick look much different from a 1940 Chevy? From 100 feet away you could hardly tell the difference. There was a 1929 Stutz Model M 5 passanger sedan for sale a couple years ago in Arizona that was about an 85 point car that sold for about 19K. Think of that, overhead cam engine, hydraulic vacume assisted brakes, and that magic Stutz name. A high quality, "real Classic" for a very reasonable price. I'm still kicking myself for not buying it. The club has already been watered down with 62 series Cadillacs, it doesn't need to be watered down any more. Rules are put in place for a reason. Some guys in my region are crying that Chrysler Town & Country's aren't included too. When does it end? You're just going to drive away the people with the early cars & then your Grand Classics will look like late 1940's used car lots. The CARavans have already started down this path. That's one reason I'm having a renewed interest in the AACA. They have seperate tours for cars of different vintages so you don't have a 1927 Franklin with a transmission band braking system, trying to keep up with a 1947 Cadillac with Hyrdamatic on a tour.

[West Peterson]

I tend to agree, however, I'm also interested in the preservation of rare and interesting cars, such as the afformentioned 1933 Buick Series 85 victoria coupe that will almost certainly go back to the earth (or street rodded). If, however, it became Classic, and there really is a good argument for it, it would be saved because of its rarity. It doesn't look a whole lot different than than that Cadillac sedan you mentioned.

cio. See you tomorrow.

[K8096]

But why does it have to be a CCCA Classic to be rescued? Look at the AACA, there are all sort of cars restored that aren't "top of the line" cars. I would think someone from the Buick club who might have a similar model buy it & try to retsore it over a period of time. That car simply isn't worth the money to take it to a shop & dump a ridiculous amount of money into it, but if you accumulated the parts over time & did a lot of the work yourself, you could end up with a nice car eventually. Look at some of the orphan cars like Hudson, Nash, REO, all of these have their own club & are successful. There's even the Antique Studebaker Club for pre war Studes, & most of those aren't Classics. I agree that Buick is a unique body style, I went back & looked at the pictures, but again you have to look at the economics of restoring it. Hopefully the guy doesn't want a lot for it, and a Buick Club guy will pick it up & at least store it inside so it doesn't deteriorate anynmore. I remember there was an article in SIA many years ago about a Gardener roadster & the article was titled "almost a Classic" A car doesn't have to be a CCCA Classic to be rare, or desirable, or worth restoring. A number of years ago there was a 1931 Ford Model A A400 that showed up at a local show. This was a very limited production Model A that looked like a Ford Tudor, but the center section of the top rolled back to make it like a convertible. They're not really the most attractive thing Ford made that year, but they are rare. What got me on this particular car was the guy who owned it said that when he got it it had a Chevy 283 in it, and he went out and bought & installed the correct Model A 4 banger. There is still hope!

[Buicksplus]

Unfortunately K8096's attitude is typical of the CCCA. It is viewed by some of its members as an exclusive country club with little interest in expanding the list to include more fine and unusual old cars.

No, a 80 (or 90) series Buick is not remotely comparable to a V-16 Cadillac Roadster or V-12 Packard Dual Cowl. But guess what, many cars on the approved classic list (such as Packard limos, Franklin sedans, etc, etc.) aren't either.

My concern has nothing to do with saving old cars or adding value to them. There is hardly anything much less relevant to a car's value or desirability than its status with CCCA. I argued that CCCA needs these additional cars to increase the club's value and relevance, not the other way around. Old cars (or their owners) don't need CCCA, they are doing just fine.

But so be it, the arguments have been made and remade many times. There are more important matters in the world -- and plenty of other car clubs to join and enjoy.

See you on the road, but definitely not at the next CCCA event.

Bill NM

[K8096]

I see nothing wrong with my attitude. I feel there are few folks like myself left to protect the high standards that the CCCA has. The CCCA is a niche club geared towards a few of the top of the line cars. The AACA and the Buick club are a perfect for an 80 series Buick. A few years ago there was a big push to allow the 1934 LaSalle into the CCCA. There was one guy in charge of making the big push (I forgot his name.) After considerable input from the general membership , the 1934 LaSalle was not accepted. The guy "who lost" wrote into the Bulletin stating that while he was dissapointed, he still loved the CCCA and planned to be contributing member for many years to come.

You have to realize something, most CCCA members are also AACA members, as well as members of the individual marque clubs. Does that mean that they're elitists when at a CCCA event, and then not when at an AACA event? That makes no sense to me. I've seen people act snobbish at Hershey, does that mean all AACA people are snobs? You can't think that way & expect to get any enjoyment out of this hobby. Any organization you join, whether it be a church, rotary club, garden club, or a car club, is going to have a few people who rub you the wrong way. But, the CCCA, like any other club, is mostly made up of decent, helpful people. To give you an idea, a CCCA friend of mine recently gave me a set of tires to use on a car I'm working or so to have something to roll it around on. We spent a couple hours in hot weather dismounting them off the rims and he worked up a good sweat. Another CCCA friend of mine recently gave me some Alemite grease guns since he said he would never own a car that took those again.

I'll mention one other thing. I went to the Franklin trek in NY in 1998. I have to admit the Franklin Club has got to be the nicest group of people in a car club I have ever been around. However, I did have a bad experience with one member, I won't say his name, but he's about the only pompous person in the Franklin Club, so if you're familiar at all with the annual Trek in NY, then you know who he is. I was on the college green helping an 80 year old club member file the points on his 1931 Franklin. He asked me to save his parking spot while he made a quick test drive around the block. I said OK. Right after he drove off, this guy in about a 1909 touring car starts to back into the space. I politly told him I was saving it for someone that will be right back. He almost exploded at me, telling me I was full of horsexxxx. I wasn't even a member of the Franklin Club at the time. Did that person's actions sway my total opinion of the Franklin club? No. And I eneded up joining anyway that fall.

You mention that adding more series of cars would "add value and relevance" to the CCCA. I don't think adding 1934 LaSalle's, 80 series Buick's, or the Gardner would add to the clubs value. Yes it may add 20 new members, but in a club with almost 6000 members, does it really make any difference? The CCCA is a relevant car club. It has been since the late 50's/early 60's and will continue to be so into the future.

I have nothing against 80 series Buicks. If that 1933 elsewhere on this forum were in my area and for sale for around $2000 - $2500 (what I think it's worth) I might buy it just to save it from a hot rodder, and then pass it along to a Buick fanatic to take the next step with it. Most CCCA members, even ones with my "attitude," have other cars that are not CCCA eligable. I used to have a 61 series Cadillac that I probably put more miles on than another collector car I've had.

The CCCA did expand it's approval of cars by membership vote a couple of years ago by allowing "virtually identical" cars prior to 1925 being accepted. Now I get to go to a Grand Classic and see some neat Locomobiles, McFarlans, Cunninghams, ect, that weren't there before.

It's your choice to be in the CCCA or not. It's not for everyone. But not allowing a few series of your favorite cars is not a valid reason to not join. The publications are excellent (especially the Bulletin with it's period photos and member feedback section), the meets attract top line cars you may not see anywhere else but a major concourse, and 99% of the people are great folks. I hope to see you down the road as well. I could have used your help a few years ago when I burned up a transmission in a modern car outside of Tucumcarri, NM. I usually take a CCCA membership directory with me whenever I go on a trip. On many occasions I have called up people on short notice to ask to see their cars, and almost everytime I get a "yes."

[JLee]

Bill,

I'm sorry to hear that the CCCA is not your cup of tea, but I think there may be hope as you are interested enough in the Club and the cars to make several very thoughtful posts. If you don't mind, I'd like to respond to some of your questions and comments.

The value and relevance of the CCCA or any other Club will always be of a very personal nature. The CCCA focus is on a specific list of cars from a specific era that has great relevance to over 6,000 members. A Club interested in pressed glass orange juicers (yes, there is one) does not have a lot of value or relevance to me, but it surely does to the internation group of its members.

If by "Value and Relevance" you mean increasing membership, then, the Club has charted the relationship between addition of significant Series and membership. It is quite clear that adding cars does not add members.

A hazard of not being a member is missing some of the updates and changes within the Club. There have been quite a few Production Series added since the Series 62 Cadillac in 1987. No, the cars added are not of the nearly 100,000 production of the 62 Series Cadillac. Some are quite significant while others are very low production. At the risk of boring you to death with a list of numbers, here is a quick run-down of some Series, and original production numbers, approved since 2002:

1928 Studebaker FA & FB, 13,186 built, approved 2-25-02

1929-1931 Jordan G, 90 and Great Line 90, approximately 2,000 built, approved 2-25-02

1929-1930 Graham-Paige 827, 2998 built, approved 2-20-05

1930-1931 Graham 127, 107 built, approved 2-20-05

1928-1929 Graham-Paige 835, 2999 built, approved 9-12-04

1940 Nash Ambassador Special Cabriolet by Sahknoffsky, approximately 47 built, approved 6-7-04

1925-1934 Daimler six-cylinder models, 3 1/2 litre and larger, production of several thousand, approved 2-20-05

1919-1931 Lanchester, 21,23, 40, 30, 1,253 built, approved 4-05

This is only from 2002 and up. Other Series were approved earlier. In addition, thirteen series of cars built prior to 1925 have been approved under the "Virtually Identical" program. The largest single series total is Lincoln from 1920 through 1924, with almost 24,000 cars built.

A number of years ago, a past Club President, Dick Gold, made the observation that "The CCCA is not for everyone." He probably was pretty accurate, but there are a significant number of automotive enthusiasts who truly enjoy the cars and the Club. In my business I do a lot with Model A Fords and MG "T" series. I happen to think these are wonderful cars and have owned many. Just because I like them and appreciate them, that does not mean that they are Full Classic cars, or will ever be considered. The fact that the car we cherish is not listed as a Full Classic by the CCCA does not mean that car is not worthwhile restoring or will have little value...have you noticed the prices of Ford wood wagons lately?

Of the 61,000,000 cars built in the U.S. between 1925 and 1948, fewer than 1.5 million are eligible to be labelled as Full Classic. That makes the cars exclusive...not the Club.

Thanks for reading.

Jon Lee

[JLee]

West,

The reason the six-cylinder Peerless has not been considered is not quite the same as the Buick saga. There was an application a few years ago for one of the later sixes on the 116" wheelbase that was declined approval. It was either a 6-60 or a 6-80, both modest cars in the $1200 to $1500 price range. The earlier 6-70 and 6-72 was a much more substantial car, priced just under the six-cylinder Packard, about the same size, with more power. To the best of my knowledge no one has ever applied for either the 6-70 or the 6-72. The Committee sometimes instigates its own considerations but the preferable method is by an application from a member.

This may be your chance to pick up on one that has been overlooked.

Jon Lee

[Buicksplus]

K8096:

I may not have helped you in Tucumcari (300 miles from me) if I knew about your problem, but I would have tried.

Unfortunately, your CCCA directory would not have done you much good. My name isn't in it and our region in NM has been barely hanging on for the last five years. There are many classics in NM, but most of the owners are too infirm to even attend a meeting, let alone bring one of their cars out for a CCCA event or hustle off to Tucumcari to give you a tow. We had three deaths just this year of very prominant NM classic car collectors. It's a very sad reality.

No doubt this gives me a different perspective about whether the CCCA might think about being just a teeny weeny bit more progressive when it comes to looking at the list of elegible cars. I mean, admitting a limited series (no pun intended) of cars that are essentially identical to a car they admitted in 1995 is hardly radical! True, it won't bring in hundreds of members. But maybe a few younger, members that just might add some vitality to the club.

Actually, if all I did was read magazines, I would probably have stayed with the CCCA. They have a good magazine. But I am an active old car collector who restores and drives my cars and even volunteers to organize events. Since I don't have a CCCA classic, I cannot really participate so there was really no reason for me to remain a member.

But, I guess your region of the CCCA is a thriving "niche" club with thousands of members, so no need to be concerned about that. But when you travel, be sure to throw in directories from the BCA, CLC, AACA, VMCCA, etc, it will increase your chances of getting help.

Bill, NM

[ATVrider]

I just got a big box with my new windshield for my Honda ATV. It tells me that new windshield is "classic". I rode my ATV recently to a "fast food" joint where I enjoyed my "classic coke" with my "classic chicken". Pursuant to the present "25 year" rule of the AACA, it will be only a few more years before my Toyota Corolla will be an ANTIQUE.

Yes, the general public has become aware of the word "classic". Many of us wish they would think a bit about what the word REALLY means.

Obviously, as the world changes, as our culture changes, our language and manner of speaking changes.

The answer to Wes's question can be found by thinking WHY there is a Classic Car Club Of America in the first place ! Are we a bunch of snobs ? Of COURSE not ! Yes, the CARS we favor in this particular club are typically bigger, faster, more elegant, and more powerful than the ordinary old car of their era. But those of us older members can only smile in astonishment when you call us 'snobs'. We are not our CARS !

Let me remind you younger folk, that in our early years, we were LAUGHED at for bothering with these big elegant but out-of-date relics of an earlier era.

To get a "flavor" of how we were looked down on for rescuing the cars we decided to call "classics", take a look/listen at old television and radio shows from the 1950's. Remember the old I LOVE LUCY series ? There are at least three of those shows that center on how stupid LUCY was, for bothering with a big old car that any of us would love to get our hands on now.

Yes, it is correct to say that the word "classic" has evolved. The dictionary our early members relied on had the traditional "classic" definition of this now popular word " UNIQUE, OF FIRST RANK..REPRESENTING THE HIGHEST STANDARD OF EXCELLENCE". The parallel meaning for those educated in the arts, was " FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION".

I recommend the book "CLASSIC CARS AND ANTIQUES" by Life Member Robert J. Gottlieb, first published in 1952, to give people a better idea of what we were all about, when the classic car movement first got going. In that book, Bob correctly points out that (in those days) it was absurd to spend a hundred dollars trying to restore a classic car, when a "mint" one can be purchased for $75 !

Yes, our definition of the word "classic" has evolved. Some of us dont see the point of widening our membership. Take a look at our own club publication (THE CLASSIC CAR Fall 1968 Vol XVII, Page 26. A LOT of our members LIKE being a small "niche" club. The issue before the Club at that time, was whether to "admit" the 1941 Cadillac Fleetwood Series 60 Special.

C'mon, folks. Who would deny the '41 Cad. 60S is an elegant, luxurious car. You could have ordered one new with FACTORY AIR CONDITIONING, the reliable Hydramatic automatic transmission. With its optional 3.08 rear axle ratio, pressurized cooling system, and "modern" type "insert" connecting rod bearings, wouldn't we rather take THAT for a 100 mph trip across the desert, than a much more elegant 1931 Cadillac Empress Imperial V-16 town car ? The point is, you will find strong arguments that the '41 Cad. was simply too modern to be included - arguments by CCCA members who OWNED '41 Cad. 60S cars!

Well, that particular issue is "water over the dam". The "camel got its nose" under the tent, so we now have, along with the '41 Cad. Fleetwood, whole bunches of streamlined cars that no-one can doubt are much more pleasant to drive than the cars we originally felt conformed to our definition of what constitutes a classic car.

Down thru the years, our Club has had "National Policy Surveys". Each time, the membership rejected the idea of expansion, clearly reflecting our rules that "license to dillute is license to destroy". Now that we have flooded our membership with people who do not see these issues as clearly as some of the older folk, we keep expanding our list of cars.

When does it end ? Should we think about why the Horseless Carriage Club Of America continues to thrive, even tho it stands firm that it will not expand its definition of acceptable cars ? Or should we go the way of the AACA, where my Toyota Corolla WILL be an "antique" acceptable to them, in just a few more years !

Of COURSE old Buicks are excellent cars, and of COURSE we have in recent years let in cars that are not as "good" as the car YOU might want to have US call a "classic". Thanks to what our National Board has "admitted" to "classic status", it is hard to argue against old Buicks, or just about ANYTHING you like (or want to sell for a higher price) as a "classic".

Say - what about my Honda ATV. It runs good. When should I apply for "classic" status ?

[K8096]

Just need to correct you on one small point. In 1941, most Cadillac's with standard shift transmission had 3.77 gears. The model 75 & 90 series commercial chassis may have had an even higher ratio in them. Regular Cadillac's with Hydramatic had 3.36 gears. What people do today is replace the 3.77 with a 3.36. There was no 3.07 in 1941. There was a 3.07 that came out sometime in the early 1950's, but I'm not sure what year. I know it was available in '53 because the Eldorado had it. Just a minor correction, but one worth noting.

[ATVrider]

I think you are right ! - caught me confusing what I thought I can remember - clearly later "option" final drive ratios.

But the essential point of my discussion remains - there can be no question that each era of auto technology brings marvelous improvements in comfort, performance, durability, and driveability - again, who can deny that the 1941 Cadillac 60 Special is a magnificent automobile, vastly superior to the ordinary car of ITS era, and certianly much more pleasant to drive, and a much more competent performer, than its 1931 counterpart in the Cadillac line.

That hypothetical 1931 Cadillac V-16 Empress Imperial Town car I brought up as an example, had an incredibly low final drive ratio, probably around 4.6 or worse. It could not have been as comfortable at ANY speed, especially on a hot day, as an "factory air" equipped 1941. And it's engine certainly wouldnt have survived very long even ATTEMPTING to reach the speeds that a 1941 could cruise effortlessly at for as long as its driver could stay awake !

But again, the argument of many of our members WHO OWNED 1941 Cadillac 60 Specials AT THE TIME, was this magnificent automobile was "too modern" in its shape and design, to be a reprsentative of the classic era.

Be assured I was not suggesting that we dis-enfranchise ANY car already holding "classic" status - for better or worse, we, as CCCA members have to accept what our elected representatives have done in our name.

What I was suggesting, is that the argument that a car someone likes, (or wants to sell), is "better" in some way, then a car already granted CCCA status, is not the best argument for its consideration.

As I noted, the Horseless Carriage Club Of America has done very nicely by keeping to its long-established traditions. By contrast, some of us feel the AACA has not been well-served by just getting raw membership numbers. As you know, they declare any old car that has managed to survive for twenty five years is somehow an 'antique' !

And as a side note - again - please dont confuse CCCA members with our cars ! Our cars represent a unique period in our history, not all of which is commendable! Those long hoods, absurdly large engines may, to some, seem to represent the arrogance of the market to which they were directed. But social commentary is not what we are about here.

We in the CCCA are CAR BUFF guys, many of whom are of relatively modest means, and just about ALL of us like ALL old cars (along with just about anything else that can go "whir" !).

So - to repeat my question...what about "classic" or "antique" status for my nice Honda ATV...?