Buickborn

Members
  • Content Count

    126
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

47 Excellent

About Buickborn

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 10/12/1946

Converted

  • Biography
    1930 Series 44 Roadster
    1954 Roadmaster Hardtop Coupe

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hear, hear! How refreshing to read an endorsement of this caliber for what the old-car hobby should be all about -- as opposed to the cost-accountant's approach, which cynically dismisses meritorious restorative effort in favor of simply whipping out one's checkbook for something already accomplished. Reminds me of Oscar Wilde's famous definition of a cynic as someone who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
  2. Wow -- those are some pretty scary numbers, suggesting that no ordinary car in poor shape is worth restoring. And the list apparently does not include re-plating, for which costs have risen dramatically in recent years. But surely there are ways to save money -- most notably by acquiring parts through the purchase of a parts car, as opposed to buying parts piecemeal. And lots of DIY can help as well. I'm not sure about how common a bill of $50-$100k for body/paint might be, but I'm happy to report that my DIY expense for putting a mess of a '41 Cadillac (which didn't have a straight body panel on it -- not even the roof!) into a beautiful paint job came to less than $1000.00 in materials -- plus, of course, many hands-on hours. And, then, rare is the car that lacks at least a few usable components (transmissions; rear ends, etc.). Still, it's good to be cautious in projecting expenses. Trouble is, bandying about apocalyptic numbers concerning restoration costs tends to play into the hands of profiteering sellers who think they've hit the lottery just because they have a decent car for sale.
  3. At the risk of pursuing this debate beyond all usefulness . . . it wasn't until 1953 that the Roadmaster shared the same wheelbase as the Super. In the case of both models, sedan wheelbase is 125.5" -- the others 121.5" I wonder if the abandonment of the Roadmaster's greater length had something to do with the fact that long hoods -- hitherto desired -- suggested old-fashioned straight-eights, replaced in 1953 by Buick's new V8.
  4. 122" wheelbase for 1949? According to my 1949 owner's manual, wheelbase for all Roadmasters that year was 126" -- 121" for the smaller series.
  5. Wow -- Given my ordinary/average circumstances, I consider $16,000.00 to be a sizable chunk of dough, and I'm envious of anyone who thinks that that figure represents an entry-level outlay. If that is what it takes to enter this hobby, then surely we cannot expect much of a stream of entrants. In my own case, although I've been a collector for many years, I still occasionally grab what I consider an entry-level car -- such as my recently-purchased good-original '39 Dodge coupe for which I paid $6500.00. For an even better example, a good friend of mine just bought a nice original '63 Studebaker Lark for $1500.00. Now, THAT is my idea of entry-level!
  6. It is very heartening to see that the overwhelming consensus here is in favor of open and untrammeled discussion. The notion that our perspectives should be suppressed unless we have cash in hand is about as antithetical to the definition of "forum" as could be imagined.
  7. I'm not sure I understand what Old-Tank expects of contributors to this (or any) forum. Surely we can all agree that our purpose here is to share our knowledge and experience -- not to engage in the hype connected with ignoring deficiencies in pursuit of maximum prices. Seems to me that there's plenty of sales "help" available here -- as long as the objective is a fair and realistic sale to a properly informed, unblinkered buyer.
  8. Now that you mention it, the license plate on my '41 Cadillac reads PLAYSAM. Sad to say, but most folks these days haven't a clue as to what it refers to.
  9. I imagine that some years ago that '40 would have been sought after as a clone of an automotive movie star, much like the "Rain Man" Buick or the "Christina" Plymouth. After all, it was a '40 Buick convertible sedan that appeared with Bogart and Bergman in the foggy, final ("Here's looking at you, Kid") scene in the ultra-iconic 1942 movie "Casablanca." (Vintage Buick, Bogart, and Bergman: we'll never see their like again.)
  10. Just wondering about the absence of spark plug covers in this car. Is that correct for this year? If so, what was the last year that nailheads covered up their plugs?
  11. e-s-c-u-t-c-h-e-o-n-s. (Pete, I'd trade my spelling skills for useful ones, like metalworking 🙄 )
  12. Got it! Thanks! Geez -- I don't care for the silver treatment either. Otherwise a knockout.
  13. Pete -- Do you know if this car has the rumbleseat as indicated by the "sport coupe" designation? It appears to be missing window-crank and door-handle escutcheons. Did you notice anything else amiss on this car? Paint looks a little less than pristine -- was this car dusty when you took the photos? Thanks for posting this!
  14. I'm surprised by the year-to-year drive interchangeability suggested here. Does the later style turbine setup (that is, Variable Pitch) directly interchange into the earlier fixed pitch Twin Turbine Dynaflow (and vice versa) with no issues? Surely the introduction of Variable Pitch in 1955 entailed some changes in the system besides merely the turbines and stator -- ??
  15. Scratchin' my head a little here . . . but, except for the downdraft carb, this engine looks earlier than 1934. The smooth, wingnut-fastened rocker cover and the absence of a cylinder head water manifold suggest a '31-'33 junior series mill -- ??