Thomas Lord

Members
  • Content Count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Thomas Lord

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 01/06/1959
  1. You are both correct. NASCAR drivers were still utilizing the 75-79 X-body for use on the superspeedways in the BUSCH Late Model Sportsman series through the mid eighties. The auther of that photo caption clearly doesn't know any better what model year the #33 car is. But since it was raced in the 1987 season, that's what he is going by. Miller American was Bobby Allison's main sponsor that year. The name "Apollo" is a misnomer also. As Brian pointed out. Some racers continued to use that instead of Skylark, when refering to these models because of apathy I guess.
  2. I just read through all four pages of this thread to make sure Thunderbolt and Lightfoot didn't get mentioned before I posted. Clint Eastwod steals a '73 Riviera, then later it gets riddled with bullets, and driven with reckless abandon through the countryside by Jeff Bridges.
  3. Excluding anything FWD, with the gen1 3800: I guess my first choice would be a 1976 Century pace car. A replica would do, but the ultimate would be one of the actual race prepped cars with the high performance engine. Honorable Mention: 1980 Regal Sport Coupe_ light gray with polycast wheels 1973 Grand Sport Stage1_ butterscotch gold 1979 Century Turbo Coupe_ maroon over gold or black/gold
  4. And the official Indy 500 Pace car that year was a Buick Riviera.:cool:
  5. It's obvious the 'Princess Car' pictured in post #8 has uni-lug aftermarket wheels, added sometime later in it's life. Sunshine333's Ciera appears to have OEM wire wheel covers with a special center cap. It's hard to tell from twenty feet away. Sunshine, how about listing the car in the For Sale section with some better pictures.
  6. Try this:License Plates of the United States of America
  7. Also note: the 231 V-6 is par for the course in a 76-79 Skylark. Therefore, I don't think this would actually "bring the value down", as we are dealing with original survivor points. These were never considered a performance car, so the engine size should hold no relevency when it comes the the value of a showroom example. Without looking it up, I am not sure this model was even available with a V-8. Even if it were, it would only be a 260ci Olds, rated at 110 horsepower. There is a dealer in Quebec that has been trying to sell a 2500 mile '75 Ventura for at least five years. They had it priced @ $22,000 in 2006. Last I checked, it was considerably less than that, but my opinion is that car isn't worth a penny over $12,000. And my opinion is biased because I happen to love 75-77 Venturas. It's real world value is less than $10,000. I'm sure that dealer would love to get their hands on the elderly lady's Skylark.
  8. Just to set the record straight, DarkAlley Dan stated this car was an "A-body". Being it is a hatchback, confirms that it is an X-body. I know Buick moved the Skylark designation from the A-body to the X-body sometime after 1974, and it could have remained an A-body badge in Canada, so this could cause confusion. Alot of folks continued to refer to the Buick RWD X-body as Apollo even after 1975.
  9. I presume you mean that flushing is a potential bad thing for automatic transmissions. I would not want people getting the idea that simply draining the fluid would risk harm. Draining old & putting in new ATF fluid is always good for the transmission. BTY: After I changed the fluid and screen on my '90 Limited, the chronic 'banging' into reverse actually went away. It was starting to gradually come back in the last several months that I had that car. It was stolen this past June. It still had the numbers matching transmission with 215K miles. I don't know if it was ever rebuilt before I bought it with 156K on it. Tom
  10. 2fit661: I certainly hope your 17 mpg fuel mileage from the T-type hasn't always been that poor. I've owned four 88-89 LeSabre T-types and they all routinely achieved 29-31 mpg on the interstate. Combined city/hwy for me was 25-27. I will admit I drive very conservitively. I had a 1990 LeSabre Limited for six years as a work/winter car, and that returned basically the same mpg as the T-types on any highway trip. About two years ago, I took it to a friend's wedding, a 300+ mile round trip in August (car had over 195K at the time). When I arrived back home and topped the tank off, I was surprised to find the mpg was only 26. It should have been 30+. I suspected the torque convertor lock-up or fourth gear had stopped functioning, but because the car did not have a tachometer I didn't notice. Shortly afterwards, I discovered the ATF fluid was 1.5 - 2 quarts low.:eek: I suspect this had caused the malfunctioning in the trans but cannot prove it. I changed the fluid and filter, then changed them again a year later. It seemed to revive the lock-up/overdrive function, but I don't know for sure, as the majority of driving was 'around town' in that car. The '91 drive train swap sounds like a good plan. I would not be very concerned about the difference in axle ratio.
  11. I didn't remember they employed 3.3 Buick V6 until I read dameron's post. The 3.3 was discontinued at some point because of reliability issues. 3.1 is what is most commonly found in these cars, but they also used the 2.5 Iron Duke. Either of those two are fairly reliable. Just check carefully for 'milkshake' residue in the valve cover if it's a 3.1. The intake gasket has a limited lifespan if coolant isn't flushed before 100K. That's about the only issue of that engine however. Sister had a '95 Achieva with that engine that went close to 250K. Transmission was getting clunky so she had to get something newer. Overall they are a good car if you find one that has low miles and been taken care of.
  12. Fair enough. I figured the 350 was probably between 354.5 and 354.9 when I read your first post. Never knew about the 336, although I have heard that the '63 326 HO engines are the only 326 to have any serious value. Guess that's why.
  13. It's my understanding that Ford & Mercury entries ran 429 cubic inches from the late 1960s until the 5.8 liter limit was established.Are you saying the 'Blue Oval' 429 was also smaller than advertised? Ford also marketed a 428 that was a completely different engine than the 429. 1966 Galaxies carried 7 Liter badges when equipped with the 428. I believe that had something to do with the NASCAR engine limit also.
  14. I've always heard it was 354. I've never done the math myself, maybe the actual is 354.5 and nobody considers rounding up.You might say the Pontiac 301 is really a 302. It has the same bore & stroke as the Ford and Chevy 302s. Another quirk about declared engine displacements by Pontiac is the 6.5 Liter badging on the early GTOs. I believe 389 cubic inches is actually most nearly 6.4 liters. They later used 6.5 Liter call outs on the decklids of 73-75 Grand Ams which were equipped with 400ci engines. Even though the 400 would be referred to as 6.6 on the 77-79 Trans Ams.
  15. Were the Lemon Laws not in effect back then?I'm thinking the transmission failure had a lot to do with the three overheating episodes also. Hindsight would have been to trade the thing in after the 1st overheating occurrence. As for the spark plugs, those were designed to go 50K or better on a set of plugs. If a car has generally been a PITA from day 1, I wouldn't consider spending blood sweat & money tuning it up unless it absolutly wouldn't run.