Buickborn

Stumbled across a very nice '49 Roadmaster sedan on Louisville Craigslist at $9500.00. Unfortunately, I am befuddled as to how to paste in the URL. Maybe someone more tech savvy than I can do the deed?

Hi, Pilgrim -- Well, in using the G-word, I was referring mostly to the "carnivorous" (much better word choice than mine, by the way) '50, which seem to present almost a digression from the '49-'54 iterations of Buick toothsome-ness. One explanation I've encountered for the popularity of the '50 version is that, after years of Depression+wartime deprivations, newly-prosperous consumers were more than ready to rock out with copious glitz and razzle-dazzle. (Clearly, by 1958 the mood was far different, as evidenced by the sales flop of the heavily chromed Buicks of that year -- resulting, along with other factors, in the cashiering/retirement of Harley Earl.)

I've long suspected that one of the reasons for Buick's tardiness (compared to Olds, Cadillac, Chrysler, Studebaker, etc.) in developing a new V8 engine may have been that Buick didn't need a new engine as urgently as did the others, which had been running decidedly old-fashioned flatheads as, opposed Buick's highly respected OHV mill. And, of course, there was (as Buicknutty reminds us) the challenge entailed in designing a V8 to fit into the narrow Buick chassis, which had no chance of being replaced before 1954.

Hi, Ben -- Goll -lee, it took almost an hour to get some blowback on my perhaps, somewhat, maybe, slightly indelicate choice of words. But before offering those pearls of wisdom, I was beginning to wonder if this thread would ever attract any participants besides Larry and me. I knew I was stepping in it with my . . . uh . . . intemperate (?) crack about the '50 Buicks. But that, you see, was merely devil's advocacy. Truth to tell, I can see that your '50 is a gorgeous knockout -- even the grotesque part😉 ~ Charlie Manes

Larry -- thanks! Not to appear as ornery as I probably really am . . . but the main reason (as if such notions have any connection whatsoever with reasoning) I'll pass on a '47 is that that is primarily a carried-over late-pre-war design. I already have that design generation covered in my garage by means of a fine 1941 Cadillac Sixty Special. The '49 Buick, on the other hand, reflects true 1st-generation postwar styling (if not engineering, aside from the Dynaflow) as well as some major Buick "firsts" such as the gunwale-to-gunwale toothy smile and, of course, the portholes. Further, it was remarkable in being a one-year-only design -- a virtually unheard-of phenomenon in auto manufacturing. 49's also provide grist for lots of interesting stories, discussions, and conjectures. For example, why didn't Buick get the new-for-'48 GM "B" body shell (as encompassed in Cadillac and senior Olds) until 1949? Why, when Olds and Cadillac had new V8s in 1949, was there apparently no new-engine development going on at Buick at that time? AND . . . how did Harley Earl know that the impressive sales of the very pleasing '49 design would be massively outdone by the tasteless and grotesquely overdone Bucktooth Buicks of 1950? In any case, the '49s are hard to beat in terms of being just plain interesting.

Larry -- a non-driver publicity car? Well, that's a new one to me. In any case, it seems that non-sedan '49s are a tough nut to crack. In my own case, for years I've looked for a '49 Roadmaster sedanet priced reasonably enough to prevent me from ending up upside-down in it. At this point, I've essentially given up -- although I've been able to acquire a nice, very affordable '30 roadster and gorgeous, reasonably-priced '54 76R. Best of luck to you in your quest. When success is yours, I hope you'll share the good news with the rest of us on the forum! ~ Charlie Manes

Larry -- A Roadmaster such as you describe can be found at Hemmings.com . Typically, the seller is trying to make hay out of the "Rain Man" meme, asking the moon for the car -- which, by the way, shows an odd, painted-out mustache

Replacement timing gear and CHAIN? My Buick (a '30 roadster -- with a six not much different from the later eights) has a gear-driven camshaft -- using a fiber gear so as to reduce gear noise. Did the eights go to a timing chain? If so (considering that the "silent chain" was a well-developed concept by then), why would they use a fiber gear?

I guess the new, more up-to-date '34/'35 series 40 Buicks could run rings around their more traditional bigger brothers (at a substantially lower price, too); but, unfortunately, they suggest glorified Chevrolets or Pontiacs -- at least when compared to the "real Buick" gravitas of the senior editions. However, the 40 series at least had a respectable new straight 8 -- as would have been expected in the days before the vaunted GM brand differentiation devolved into mere "badge engineering."

Terry -- Taxable horsepower (the historical basis for vehicle taxation in most parts of the world) is derived from a formula which was quite accurate in reference to very early, extremely inefficient auto engines, that is: cylinder bore in inches squared x number of cylinders divided by 2.5. One major effect of this formula was to discourage large bores and encourage long strokes, which is why the very earliest, relatively "square" engines gave way to the relatively-smallish-bore, deep-strokers with which collectors of pre-1949 vehicles are quite familiar. The effect of taxable horsepower was most noticeable in British engines, which largely explains why post-war English cars were so inadequate for American highways. Those very-small-bore, long-stroke engines just couldn't stand up to the rpm needed for American speeds. In any case, the reason I raised this topic is that it is not clear to me why brake horsepower was sometimes expressed in two figures, such as 25-30 or 45-50, etc. Anyone got that one? Thanks! ~ Charlie

According to the Buick catalog, this car is powered by a six rated at 27.3 N.A.C.C. (aka taxable) h.p. and 60 brake h.p. The four cylinder engine for that year was rated at 18.23 N.A.C.C. h.p. and 35-40 brake h.p. While the concept of taxable horsepower is commonly understood, I'm wondering if anyone on the forum can tell us why brake horsepower was sometimes expressed in two figures, as in the case of the '22 Buick four. Thanks!

As of this morning, clicking on the H.A.M.B. link for the '32 Buick results in an error message. Any suggestions for another way to access the page? Thanks!

Good for Pete, and good for that '46! It's always nice to see a good car go to a good guy clearly honorable in his intentions. In spite of this eminently desirable outcome, I find myself constantly questioning the fairness or ethics involved when a side deal (or a seller's dissatisfaction with bidding levels in a no-reserve or out-of-reserve auction) leads to the termination of an eBay auction in progress. How in the world can this practice be considered fair to other bidders? What motivates a seller to go along (especially when a reserve is in place) rather than see the auction through -- other than to avoid paying the auction site its due arising from the sale? And why does eBay allow this practice, when no live-auction house would allow a mid-auction termination due to a side deal or to the seller's desire for more promising bids? Thoughts, anyone?

Any classic-movie buffs out there? A 1940 Buick phaeton like the one listed here (except that the other one was sidemounted) appears in the famous final, fog-beshrouded scene in the iconic 1942 movie Casablanca. I've often thought these cars thereby deserve a modicum of celebrity -- as more-or-less a prewar version of the revered Rain Man Roadmaster . . . . . .But, withal, there is a difference: that '49 four-holer never had to compete with the likes of (sigh) Ingrid Berman . . .

Wow -- talk about being outvoted! And, yes, Matt, I do think you're amazing -- which is why I was so upset at what seemed in your narrative to be potshots aimed at ordinary hobbyists' judgment about what's worth what. In any case, I impressed by the effort entailed in your very articulate rebuttal as well by all the expressed support of your approach. In fact, when I told my faithful sidekick Tonto that we might be in trouble on this one, he asked: "What you mean 'WE,' Quimo Sabe?" ~ Charlie Manes

Guys, is it just me? Or does anyone else here feel that a club forum night not be an appropriate venue in which to inject slick, hyped-up dealer ad copy such as that found in Hemmings or any of a myriad of other such commercial sites? I might be the Lone Ranger in feeling this way; but I, for one, expect a site like this one to be a locus where hobbyists can find mutual assistance, support, and camaraderie, free from sophisticated salesmanship and braggadocio clearly intended to gaslight our members into parting with copious amounts of money by means of attacking their judgment and crowing about previous successes in similar efforts. But, then, maybe it's just me . . .

John -- sorry for slow reply. I haven't been back to this thread lately. Will look for that article.

With rear gearsets in short supply, instead of trying to convert the Dynaflow to open drive and gin up a modern rear axle installation, it might be easier and cheaper to do a gear reproduction project and stay otherwise original. For example, a few years ago, I and three other Buick knuckleheads had four sets of '34-'35 series 40 differential gears fabricated for about $1100.00 per set. Not too bad -- and we were able to choose the ratio, to boot (in this instance, 3.55:1).

Torque tubes in Dynaflow Cadillacs? Great question! But surely the required additional re-engineering would not have been justified, as would have been the case going in the opposite direction -- that is, in adapting the Hydra-Matic into a Buick. The tendency of a torque tube to degrade the smoothness of Hydra-Matic shifting was a problem that plagued senior Nashes, but surely there's no reason to think that a conventional Hotchkiss drive would present problems for a Dynaflow. Further, the Cadillac Hydra-Matic axle ratio (3.36:1) was very close to the 3:40 ratio used by Buick, so no changes would have been needed on that account.

It is interesting to conjecture about how the Dynaflow Cadillacs stack up in market value compared with the Hydra-Matic jobs. From what I've seen on eBay, the Dynaflow effect appears to be negative -- understandable since non-Buick folks tend to be very critical of the "Dyna-slush," especially the early versions. In my own case, I'd love to have a Dynaflow Cadillac, if only as a curiosity and conversation piece. A lesser known result of the Hydra-Matic fire appeared in the form of Power-Glide-equipped Pontiacs and junior-series Oldses, none of which I recall ever seeing on the collectors' market. Commendably, by all accounts GM's first priority after the fire was to meet its obligations as a Hydramatic supplier to its competitors -- Hudson, Nash, Lincoln, etc. -- none of which experienced disruptions. No doubt that was due to fear of lawsuits. Considerably more puzzling, however, is the question of why GM would be selling its hugely popular automatic to the competition in the first place. Sorta reminds me of an expression often used by my New York-born grandmother in defense of her recipe secrecy: "Does Macy's tell Gimbel's?"

Somewhere I have a 1954 edition of Motor Trend magazine containing an article featuring a body guy who at the time was making a very active business out of converting completely unwanted, hopelessly boxy early-30s sedans into more desirable open cars by (1) removing the roof and window frames, (2) closing up the window openings in the doors, and (3) slanting the windshield. Since the windshield frame in the car listed in this thread bears no resemblance to that of a real Buick phaeton but does indeed slant, surely this car is a sedan conversion of the type described in that long-ago article. More puzzling, however, is the rear bustle -- along with the reverse-opening lid hinged at the bottom. If that is part of a conversion, someone certainly went to considerable trouble in pulling it off.

Terry -- Nice to hear from someone sharing my take on staying with original equipment! (I was beginning to feel like the Lone Ranger on this Marvel carburetor issue.) Actually, you've gone an extra mile, I feel, in playing defense here. That is, you seem to be suggesting that your Marvel is absolutely satisfactory. Great! So is mine. But perhaps the central question is: even if we accept that updating would improve performance, so what? Is that result really consonant with what we're trying to accomplish in preserving and restoring this old stuff? After all, if performance is the criterion, why not just yank out the entire mill and drop in a 350? At the end of the day, then, I think we earn better bragging rights when we can point with pride to our preservation of historically correct systems than when we have to explain what we have cobbled together in the name of "improvements."

Carb King, on my '30 44, the cast iron heat riser jacket bears the Marvel logo. Assuming, therefore, that Buick had contracted with Marvel for the complicated heat riser system as well as for carburetors, surely you're correct in supposing that cancelling with Marvel would have led Buick into objectionable development expense in light of the updraft engine's imminent demise.

I really should proofread my entries. The last two words of my last post should be downdraft carburetors.

Well, re: gravity-feed, I think we need to distinguish between what might be termed pure (?) gravity feed as opposed to . . . vacuum-assisted gravity-feed? An example of the former is that which appearing in pre-V8 Fords, which carried the fuel tank high in the cowl, from which it simply ran down into the carb. In the vacuum-tank system, engine vacuum drew fuel into a chamber in the high mounted unit which then (governing the fuel level by means of a float valve) fed the carb via gravity. Neither of these systems, of course, would be compatible with high-mounted updraft carburetors.