NTX5467

Might those particular decals have been similar to, or the same as, the ones on the Skylark GS models? Just curious, NTX5467

Many aftermarket brake shoes are sized to allow for the upper end of drum diameter specs, already, by their own admission. The upper end of the drum internal diameter have always been known, so no secrets there. From the prior times, there has always been mention of arcing the shoes to match the drum ID, as an extra step to immediately make the shoes match the drum diameter. Of all of the cars we had with drum brakes, unless the drums got grooved from wear, never got them cut. The cutting technique could cause problems in itself IF the end cut was too rough or done with a dull cutting bit. Same with disc brake rotors, too! SO, new shoes and then drive gently for the first 50 miles or so to make gentle stops from 30mph and progressively higher for about a total of 50 stops (maybe 30?) to break-in the frictions to work with the existing drum diameter and surface. NO panic stops! For many people, this was just "drive normally", but in modern times, traffic speeds have increased so more attention to doing the easy break-in might pose some issues. Luckily, though, it can still be possible. IF the brakes start to smell and fade early on, ease the car to its parking space and let the shoes cool overnight. Then gently check them the next day or later. Soon, no more smells, even after a hard stop. Then you're done with the break-in. Cutting the drums and putting the correct surface finish on them can make things work quicker, though, but the linings still have to get the resins cooked out of them. NTX5467

ONE or two things to ultimately consider in wondering about these things, "What was the Interstate speed limits of the time?" Specifically in Kansas, TX, and Arizona, when the cars were DESIGNED and sold to the public. With the design stage being about three years prior to first sales of the platform and then the designers projecting from that part as to the future of private ground travel. Don't think that the designers and such cruised around the high speed section of the GM Proving Grounds at 60mph to determine these things, either. The car's components and TIRES would have to be able of sustaining such speeds for about 300 miles solid, then doing it again for another 300 miles in the 90+ degree F temperatures of "summer travel", too. Then, following the factory service schedule, lasting to at least 75K miles before any major powertrain work was needed. Speed capabilities with durability. "Tires", of course, were a big part of these things, too! With generally THREE levels of cold tire inflation pressures. The first would be the "24psi smooth ride, no load, 70mph and less road speed" recommendation. Then would come the "high speed" recommendation of "+4psi for speeds over 70mph, then the "full-rated loading" 32psi spec (with the tire load capacity cast into the sidewall near the bead of the tire. My own personal recommendations would be "30/28" for all driving with less than "full-load-rating". I know that sounds a bit unusual, but here's why. My theory is that with a full-load, then the back tires need more air to support the extra weight, so with vehicle weight distribution usually being in the 55/45 f/r range the front inflation pressure needed to be a bit more in the front as that was the heaviest end of the car. Equalizing the tire pressure to reflect "axle load" had many benefits. One is better steering response and cornering as the front tires were stiffer all around. Which also leads to better and longer tire wear (as long as the front end alignment is in specs). So the car can be more fun to drive. Having the rear tire pressure at the "high speed" level, means it is also stiffer and rolls easier. Which relates to a better firmness in the suspension and ride, but not "too harsh". It also ensures that the tread is flat on the road, rather than being rounded, which also results in better wear across the tire's tread width. No wear specifically in the center (too much air for load) or the edges (too little air for the load), from my experiences with 5.5"-7.0" rim widths on 4500 lb vehicles. One of the ways I prototyped this pressure differential was to turn the front wheels, side to side, with the vehicle stationary, then back if off that spot to inspect the rubber pattern on the concrete. With 28psi of less in the front tires, there would be a light spot in the middle. At 28psi, the patch was more consistent. At 30psi, it was solid. This pressure differential works especially well for fwd vehicles, I discovered. One weekend, I rented a Chevy Beretta for an excursion. When I got it back to the house, I checked the tire pressures the next morning. It had handled decently well, as to ride and steering response, but when I reset the pressures to 32/30 (as it has P-metric radials on it), it was like going from a 6-cyl car to a high-performance car in how it drove and responded to the steering and throttle inputs. That was with just 2psi differential, as the additional weight of fwd might need 4psi to balance things. Why do the OEMs recommend lower front tire pressures? So the front tires slip first and the driver slows down before they do something flaky or hit something. Especially on wet roadways or worse. Being that the seasons are changing and remembering high school physics about "gasses volume changing with temperatures", Check and ADJUST your tire pressures for the coming cooler weather. In the current times, DO inspect the chassis for worn items and make sure all fluid levels are "to spec" BEFORE driving ANY vehicle on the highway/Interstate for any amount of time, at or above posted speeds. Plus tire pressures. Just good sense, to me. Enjoy! NTX5467

Originally, Type A was the "fluid of choice", but I recall seeing that in out 1961 Chevy owner's manual that it mentioned a specific Chevy/GM part number for "power steering fluid". I also know that Chrysler had something similar in 1966, which pre-dates Dexron atf. So, ALSO note that past a certain model year, GM stopped putting the "Type A" fluid on the power steering reservoir cap, which probably coincided with their new "Power Steering Fluid" appearance. I know that on the cars we have had, with all of then being past 100K from new (or year-old-used), that the systems were maintained with Chrysler or GM PSF, as they aged, NO hose leaks due to incorrect fluid. On a '67 Chrysler I bought, when I got it, the power steering fluid in it was red and smelled of atf. Later, fluid started to permeate and seep from the rubber hose sections. Then I drained out as much as I could, two times, and then refilled with GM PSF, that stopped. Those experiences were also bolstered at the GM dealership I worked at when a tech came to the window, frustrated because the atf filler tube o-ring he'd been getting would come back within two weeks, leaking again, as a "shop comeback". I looked up the GM part number and gave him one. He was happy with no come-backs from such again. Which means that common o-rings are not always rated to seal atf, which can be extended to the power steering seals and hoses. Although all of those o-rings look the same. I fully know that in the prior times, topping-off a ps system with atf was the accepted thing to do, in the service station trade. Usually no problems with just an ounce or so added to the OEM psf. BUT if there is a seep or leak, which requires more additional fluid to be added, if atf is the fluid added, then THAT fluid becomes the majority fluid in the system and until the leak is fixed, the whole system becomes "full of atf". In many ways, 1960s atf probably is a better fluid than psf, but unless the seals/rubber is rated for atf, best to use the spec psf or one compatible with the old GM part number 1050017 psf. The later Dexron III fluid is also sold as "Dexron III/Mercon V" fluid, with the Ford Mercon V fluid also plainly stated to be used in Ford power steering systems. That's fine for Ford, but GM has not claimed such for their power steering systems when they already have an existing power steering fluid per se. Just my experiences and observations, NTX5467

(Chasing special fuel??)

Back in about 2006, the Harvard Business magazine published an article on whether and employee should stay when the company ownership might change. A reasonable subject considering the times. As it evolved, it struck me as something more of a college research paper rather than a scholarly article as such. To determine who stayed and who went, they used the company annual reports to determine this. Not bad, all things considered. Unfortunately, it seemed to not yield any concrete information other than a 50-50 split of "stay" or "go". A few other dynamics did emerge, though. The new manager/CEO would get "free reign" to make changes and such, before those changes were deemed good or otherwise. Some managers would seem to barricade themselves in their office, only talking to their secretaries, as they poured over "data". No "managing by walking around". THEN, when an enterprising section manager might go up "to introduce themself", the new CEO kind of took the "He wants to meet ME" orientation, so that was a new friend which had insight into operations. In that manager's department, it sounded like the words "brown nosing" were operative, in reality. As the new CEO never seemed to wonder "If this person is up here talking to ME, what's going on in HIS department?" In looking at resumes, it's easy to see where a manager has worked, at what jobs, and how long. If the person has been a higher-level manager or CEO, with that first period of "free reign" and little oversight by the Board who hired them, his "new things" might seem good initially, even great, but by the end of three years, the other side of the "changes" would start to become obvious, sometimes "not good", SO that would motivate the new manager to find somewhere else to be, before things he orchestrated cratered. So while things were still going well, he sought other employment before he might later be fired. So he went to another company, where his achievements at the other company were lauded, so he was hired into a new company. Cycle Repeat. After a few cycles, many initial achievements allegedly happened, so he then becomes a top executive with "lots of experience". "Experience" in knowing when to "get out soon", by observation. With all of his "experience", he is lauded and comes to be sought out by many entities to help them run their companies. My observation is that such "hired-in managers" only know how to manipulate "the books" to make themselves look good to the company financial operatives, which can increase the share price of the company's stock. Of course, the easiest way to look profitable is to start hacking at costs. Operational costs, supply costs, and employee costs. Many times resulting in decreased customer satisfaction in the process. Who might really care as long as the company is making money and paying dividends? Need more profits? Ease prices upward when such increases are not really warrantied, for example. Of course, the old "supply and demand" orientation is operative as well. And THESE things, over the past decades, has brought us to where we now are in USA businesses, by observation. Certainly, many of these things have existed since the first businesses, but those earlier times were when "a good business person" was respected and appreciated, in a long-term orientation. When "good teachings" happened with new managers and paying attention to what the customer wanted, then giving it to them, or exceeding the customer's expectations, was much more operative than in current times. "Business" is about "making money", as always, but "business profits" should not seem to be about "greed", per se. Finding that happy point on the continuum is the best way to do things. Enjoy! NTX5467

One thing from the Iacocca book mentioned that when Ford went looking for future execs, they went to recent Harvard business school graduates, in an apparent attempt to get the newest orientations and "remain fresh". GM kept promoting from within, it seemed. The GM way of doing that CAN perpetuate past fails with new ones, by observation. The Ford way can result in inexperienced "theory" individuals who have not learned many lessons just yet. How many times over the past few decades have you heard of Ford purging salaried employees of particular demographics? At one time, the preferred Ford new-hire or promotee was a minority female about 35 years of age, allegedly. It has also seemed that many of Ford's "big problems" tended to result from too many experienced people/mentors, the people younger employees can ask questions of and get credible answers from, were not there any more. Their ignition module failures, when a new one which failed replaced the older one which never failed, happened, probably hurring vehicle sales of gasoline vehicles for several years in the 1980s. Sometimes, I wonder about employees of one company that end up at another company and suggest the need for "coaching" by some perceived "guru"/"expert" to their new employer. From what I have seen, not desiring to sound "generational", but most of these "coaches" are far too young to really know very much about the business they are consulting with or the various dynamics of what has made these businesses successful over the years. Certainly, they can bring some new orientations to the table, but THOSE orientations are not universally-good-for-everybody, no matter how much they might believe they are. While there might be some commonality in businesses and how they might operate, what would work well for one might well fail with another business, even in the same industry. Not unlike car clubs! How many of them are exactly the same as to what works to make them good organizations? Everything MUST be fine tuned for each entity for best results. The question of "Will it really work for US, might we modify it a bit for best results, or should we even consider it?" needs to be asked and pondered. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, it became kind of popular for retired GM executives to buy a smaller-town dealership to retire with. Afterall, they had worked for GM for decades and knew the car business. Usually, after about three years, they had learned that while they might have known "the factory side", they did not know the "local distribution side" nearly so well, so the dealerships were put up for sale and full retirement happened. One of GM's main strengths has always been its local dealer network, who knew how to balance "what the factory wanted", "what made things work at the local level", and could balance those two perspectives in a profitable manner. Even now, there seem to be a good number of "self-proclaimed stars" on both sides of things, looking to line their pockets to their own benefit. Especially in the local distribution side of things with allegedly big-time dealer groups. Some might term themselves "turn-around specialists". Just some thoughts and observations, NTX5467

The viability of Oldsmobile was compromised by the earlier 1980s funding of the "new" Cadillacs and their NorthStar V-8. Cadillac had made some flaky design moves which allowed Lincoln to take over the livery trade (i.e., limos) which Cadillac had always been strong in. The NorthStar System of the new high-tech OHC engine and the electronic suspension resulted. As Lexus also started stealing sales. To me, the reality is that the wheels just know that power is turning them, not if that power comes from reliable and smooth OHV V-8s or OHC V-8s, but as Lexus was the newly-anointed luxury car "leader", and they had a OHC motor (which was the benchmark for the Ford 4.6L OHC V-8), then Cadillac had to have one too, to appear to be competitive rather than the also-ran GM had allowed it to become. Which the Chev-a-ron did not help keep Cadillac in "elevated" status. BUT that was the era when GM Marketing just seemed to be concerned if their vehicle specs and features looked good on paper, no matter if the GM equipment on the car, plus the vehicle itself, was poorly executed and built. A good example of that was the Olds Achieva. When I first saw it at the Dallas New Car Show, I figured it would do decently well as it looked as bland as its competition from Honda and Toyota. Only thing was that Honda and Toyota had nicer-operating engines, transmissions, and build quality. When you looked at the comparison chart in their sales literature, the larger engine in the Olds, the more gears in the transmission, .100" more room, all were noted "Advantage" for the Achieva. Looked good on paper. In the real world, the rougher-operating Olds 4-cyl did not match the Honda or Toyota for smoothness of fuel efficiency, things which mattered more than looks, by observation. In the comparison tests of Seville/STS and DeVille/DTS models with European and Oriental competitors, the Cadillacs usually finished mid-pack. In looking at the test results, much of the difference was due to "tire choice" and "suspension calibration" choices. NEITHER of which would cost much to do differently, just some extra R&D time already funded. Which gave the general public (including potential Cadillac buyers) the impression that that their competitors were better vehicles. Then, in the mid-2000s, BMW suddenly sold more vehicles that Cadillac did, by 12K units. Which came down to if each Cadillac dealer-of-record had sold just a few more cars/month, BMW would not have beat them! This was in the times before the Escalade was the "force" it later came to be. Through all of the flounderings of Cadillac, GM hired the guy who made Audi what it came to be, to do the same with Cadillac. One of the firest things he allegedly did was to tell the Cadillac dealers that "livery" would not be possible with upcoming Cadillacs. Which basically handed that market to Ford/Lincoln in a really nice handbasket. Then he wanted a smaller dealer body, making lots of smaller dealers (who also sold other GM brands in the countryside) mad. Finally, they sent him on his way! Another failed brand CEO that did more to hurt than help, by observation. The CT6 has a LOT of high-level construction technology in it, none of which is inexpensive to do. Such a car should have its own unique engine, but the base model had a normal GM 4-cyl turbo engine in it. Upgrades? A twin-turbo V-6 sized for Cadillac. NO V-8s of any size. Trying again to position Cadillac with high-tech, expensive engines and transmissions. In platforms originally used by other GM lines, etc. Can't forget the Eldorado Touring Coupe! As Mercedes was using letters to designate their models, "research" indicated that Cadillac should do the same. So the "Eldorado Touring Coupe" became the Cadillac ETC. WTH? As the Seville Touring Sedan became the STS and DeVille Touring Sedan became the DTS. Another change which didn't help sales, if at all, by observation. Through all of this, GM was trying to cement itself as a "tech leader" via voice commands controlling the radio and such, letting up to 12 WiFi devices be tethered to ONE vehicle, and other things many older (people who could afford to BUY a Cadillac) Cadillac customers, but allegedly were important to the younger potential customers. And the grandkids might use, but 12? BTAIM In the 1990s, Cadillac had some show-stopper concept cars that should have been built. Would have made everybody else, including Lexus, look 30 years old when they hit the showroom floors, but Cadillac did not. Just as Buick should have done the Avenir and Avista concept cars, but did not. As if all of that funding was wasted, so why spend it in the first place? MORE missed opportunities to keep TWO platforms alive and making money (as the Avista could have been put on the Camaro platform and further refined to be worth of the Buick nameplates). In some respects, as great as the CT6 is, it can tend to appear to be no more than a very expensive Chevrolet Impala. Not worth of competing with BMW or "appliance car" Lexus. When I went to the dealer training ried-drive event for the then-new Cadillac SRX "wagon", they had the popular Lexus competitor there. I was standing in the staging area for the autocross event. I looked over and there was one of the Lexus models there. When the driver hit the gas to start the course, it just sounded WIMPY, compared to the others, as the SRX had a muscular tone to it and acted like it in acceleration and suspension dynamics. We were also told to not set the parking brake on the Volvo as it would not release after the course, so if we wanted to drive it later, don't set the parking brake. Of course, the GM products displayed their robustness in these areas. By observation, GM does many things really well, but there is still far too much mediocrity in product and operations for it to get anywhere near its former glory. The Smale Years dang near killed GM, although it was making money, on a market penetration of as low as 17%, compared to closer to 55% with ALL of its carlines doing good in the later 1970s and closer to 60% in the middle 1960s. When the GM divisions were more-competing among themselves than with Ford, Chrysler, or others. Just some recollections and observations, NTX5467

On those cars, one way to see if the owner was not being truthful if he said "It's all stock" was to look at the top of the C-pillar, where it joined the top, top upper corner where it met the top at the top of the side window glass. On those "stock" cars which had been raced, there would be "coach joint" cracks there starting in that right-angle corner going back about an inch toward the back glass. BOTH sides. Body flex "under torque". Yet on one car, it's street racing heritage was obvious, from the owners denials and the way the engine looked. As in K&N breathers on the valve covers. Enjoy! NTX5467

Possibly a prior owner's "fix" for heat intrusion from the mufflers under that part of the floor pan? Might replace it with something more modern for heat/sound insulation issues, if desired. NTX5467

On the other side of things, there are good kits and not-so-good kits. Many of these kits will result in a transmission that can last a long time in normal use, by observation, and not cost too much money. Many of the better automatic transmission shops will source what they use from various brands and sources, then fine tune things as they go along as to what works best where, for them. Of course, they also know the customer usually shops "low price", so getting quality frictions and such at the best price for them is important. That covers the parts only! By observation, if a private automatic transmission shop always has work, it's either because they can't fix anything for very long, don't charge enough money, OR do very good work. Just as with engine machine shops, I suspect the transmission shops can source the better parts in "white boxes" for much less money than any consumer can buy them themselves. As to "shift kits", used to be lots of variables there, too. The cheap ones (used to be $20.00 in the 1970s) were simplistic and resulted in tire-chirping shifts at part throttle as the more expensive B&M kits could give firm, quick, but not harsh shifts without harming the factory-designed/produced demeanor of the transmission. In some cases, it's easy to "buy over-kill" items which cost more and can last forever, but generally operate just as well as some less expensive items will. Inquire if any of the rubber seals and such are compatible with syn automatic transmission fluids. I suspect they all might be, but verify that with the supplier/rebuilder. Just some thoughts and observations, NTX5467

Or . . . multiple brands owned by the same financial entity, yet (hopefully) operating independently and hitting different customer demographics and price points. Another consideration is the same facility making the different brands, to the specs of each particular brand (what the customer wants to pay for), in each brand's respective packaging. Since about 1968 or so, there have been federal brake performance specs, as to pedal pressure maximum limits for a particular level of stopping power or brake line pressure. What happens past that is up to the people/vendors who make the OEM and replacement brake parts. On each item of brake friction material, there is the "Edge Code", which identifies the friction manufacturer (number code), its production date, plus hot and cold brake performance levels (letters, A - F. or so, with higher letters being better). Which means an auto supply house brand can have the same performance levels as a higher-priced brand, with no criteria of which might last the longest or stop the quietest. Safe Holidays to ALL! NTX5467

Yes, many of the "Biggest Flop" or "Worst Car Ever" items are revenue generators as people know that others will look at those articles, which generates "click cents" for each entry into that "journalistic" item. For example, the Reatta might have been a sales disappointment, based on the numbers produced, BUT The Reatta Craft Center was a chance to test and perfect many new technology ideas (like the self-guided carts which moved each car from work station to work station, with no normal-as-we-know-it assembly line, which was more space efficient for smaller-volume vehicles). It was also the first time a paint vendor had been on-site of the manufacturing facility, too. LOTS of things that a higher-production vehicle facility had not been doing, as I recall. The same facility was later used to build the Chevy SSR and some of the Pontiac G4 convertibles. All niche vehicles for GM. The "Worst Car" or "Cars to Stay Away From" articles are written by "someone" using "somebody else's" accumulated data. Just working from "Information from Others" rather than anything even close to "first-hand knowledge" (as the authors were not alive back then, usually). AND . . . who's to say that the data accumulated is anything close to accurate? OR if it is even meaningful or as important to the long-term durability of the vehicle? Kind of like what Consumers Report used to term "a defect" in a new car being that the headlights were not aligned correctly when it was sold new, rather than something which would generate a TSB from the OEM. And then there are the "You're an Expert If You Know What More Than 30% of These Cars Are" type articles. With multiple-choice answers many could wander through and be an expert, of pages loaded with ads. Revenue generators and little else, which we support out of our curiosity. But then I've heard people term cars "junk" or "gutless", which were far from that, when I looked at them and drove them. Some people just don't know that a squeak or rattle does not constitute "junk". Many just mean more attention was needed during assembly, which means a few minutes can usually cure them! Nor that a peaky power curve engine does not mean "gutless" when teamed with a 2-speed automatic transmission. Yet these "experts" claim to know everything. Oh well . . . Happy Holidays! NTX5467

I like Lutz. An interesting person. But there's the better part of one chapter in his book "GUTS" which details why it seems that bartenders couldn't build him a Martini to his specs. At the time, he was a visonary, an opportunist, and knew the financials had to work. Many of his financial orientations, while at Chrysler, led to them suddenly printing money for themselves and the dealers. The "golden eggs" which Daimler (unadmittedly) lusted after and then stole (as Daimler was in financial trouble in those years, partly through their own fault) through "management fees" or similar. During his time at Chrysler, Chrysler had attracted a LOT of younger talent. Many of them followed him to GM and went on to be high-level managers for GM and helped build its successes in the 1990s. Others went to Ford. The younger people who replaced them at Chrysler were ALSO some exceptionally talented people, too. And the ones after them, too. Then came "The Daimler Years" and a lot was lost. As things evolved, Daimler first considered Chrysler to be "the weaker side" of the "Merger of Equals", as they were the dominant force on the Chrysler Board of Directors. Slowly, all of the people who made Chrysler great were forced out for one reason or another. Dr. Z and Dieter were sent to look after things over here. Dieter had been involved with the Mercedes "hot rod" section. Eventually, they became "The Kids in the Candy Store" after they discovered Chrysler successful performance car operations (which NEVER died during the recession and high (at the time) gas prices. Even they small FWD cars had performance versions, as Ford and GM abandoned such, IF they ever had any at all. Reports surfaced that they also ate lunch in the normal employee lunch area, which was earth-shattering for such to happen. Then Dieter drove the Viper-powered motorcycle onto the stage at some big-time vehicle showing, against Daimler orders. When I heard of the "merger", I knew that IF the Daimler operatives would "put their Teutonic Pride in their pockets, they might learn something" (MY words). AND as it evolved, what started as the Daimlerization of Chrysler became The Chryslerization of Daimler! Dr. Z returned to Germany to run Mercedes and took with him a Chrysler 300 SRT8 for his company car. Which generated a Chrysler TSB on reprogramming the ECM to allow the cruise control to work at WOT cruise. By observation, when Chrysler and Ford do "retro", it works for them. When GM tries it, something gets lost in the mix or they try to take it into a dead-end direction. Mustangs and Challengers sold well, as the Camaro ended up floundering and being discontinued again. The first discontinuation of Camaro was the result of a squabble between GM and the UAW, for some small reason. It became obvioius that GM was letting the Camaro get stale in the later 1990s (probably some 14th floor decision and orientation), which decreased sales, which then gave them the reason to kill it. What happened after that "awakened" GM management who seemingly were willing to write-off the legions of Camaro enthusiasts. A lesson Ford learned when what became the Ford Probe was almost a Mexican-built "New Mustang". Ford listened and kept on going, but GM had already made a contractual agreement with the UAW to close soem plants (of which the Camaro/Firebird was one), so they had to kill the car for a while. A bad move, by observation. When Ford discontinued the mid-size T-bird, plus the similar Lincoln Mark and Mercury Cougar, it was because the platform and tooling was worn out and they did not see promise in doing new versions. As great as that platform initially was, getting praise from every car magazine, it was "over-weight and over-budget" from what Ford wanted, so everybody that had anything to do with that program was "reassigned", from what I read. The Gen II Camaro had its roots in Oz, with its "V" VIN number designation. But the whole platform was Americanized greatly for use and sale in the USA markets. That was how it came to be as quickly as it did. When Lutz brought the Holden Monaro/Pontiac GTO to the USA, it was a lightly-adapted Oz car, imported, which kept costs down. But the GTO distribution and dealer interaction with things like "allocations" was problematic and made customers mad. The customers did not understand why the dealer they just put a deposit with would take months to get their car when a dealer 20 miles away had them "on the lot". But, in reality, not untypical for "cash cow" vehicles. BTAIM GM's marketing people aimed at the younger customers. But almost every new Camaro we sold exceed $50K MSRP. Fathers bought their high school-age daughters full-loaded SS models for high school graduation. A continuation of parents giving their kids many of the things THEY wanted back then, it seemed. Mustang and Challenger built their sales volumes with V-6 cars and Camaro was not in that game, although it could have been. To me, I understood the heritage of the interior design, but it didn't come off "right" to me. I didn't care about the trendy option of "multi-color ambient lighting". Marketing mis-cues abounded, with marketing focused on the more profitable SS big-engine models, from what I saw. The old GM way or doing things . . . let others open market niches, then GM responds and becomes the sales leaders in those markets failed to work as it had in the past. It seemed that everybody who knew anything left during the J. Smale years of "brand management". Those that replaced them were not oriented toward automobiles, but "consumer goods", by observation. Plus the "Why so many different brands that cost the same amount of money?" people, who didn't understand that customers who had $25K to spend were not all the same people, as some wanted sporty as others wanted utility and others wanted something nicer. To me, Oldsmobile could have been made more successful by re-focusing on scrappy Chrysler LHS than on Lexus and Infinity, with the Intrigue (putting the Oldsmobile NAME on the front of the cars, rather than a new corp emblem nobody understood. A corporate emblem for Oldsmobile that was a prediction of what was to come for the brand. Rather than the Rocket taking off, it took off, circled the globe, then "off into space". My observation about GM became . . . when a platform is designed correctly, hits the target market correctly and lots of sales happen, customers like the cars, once that platform is designed and signed-off on, that group is dismantled and they go their separate ways, rather than seeking to build upon their obvious successes with the next-gen platform. When GM did the second generation of fwd C/H cars, they followed something that Chrysler did, by bringing in the suppliers and vendors into the design process "table" early on, to make final decisions on what the cars would cost to produce. Making everybody a partner in the process, which worked well for Chrysler in getting the LH cars to market under-budget and in less time. Less time due to engaged employees and engaged vendors and some innovative ways to do things to reduce production costs. Thos particular GM cars were very well-received, had their trademark design cues and features, and they sold well with FEW warranty expenses as a result. But their "next platform re-design" did not reflect those things, so it was back to "business as usual" for GM. YUK! Three books! The John DeLorean book "On a Clear Day, You Can See General Motors", circa 1981, the Lee Iacocca book on his time at Ford and then Chrysler, and the Bob Lutz "GUTS!" Between those three books, you can learn a massive amount about how things wree done in the 1950s - 1970s (at GM from the DeLorean book), how Ford (and others) operated in the middle 1950s and later, then the situation Iacocca found at Chrysler, then how Lutz re-shaped Chrysler from its traditional form to become the powerhouse it became in the 1990s. There is a forth book, an Iacocca book it seems, which mentioned that after Chairman Lee had retired, he started to want to get back into the game at Chrysler, to run it again, using the assistance of Chrysler's largest stocholder, Kiri Kerkorian (who apparently bought massive amounts of Chrysler stock during the days of the first "bankruptcy" in the early 1980s, when wallpaper cost more than a share of Chrysler stock, to watch his investments grow to massive proportions in the 1990s, when the stock price doubled with each new product introduction. That book mentions that Kerkorian was hosting a cocktail party to gain support for a Chairman Lee return to Chrysler, just that Bob Eaton got wind of it. Bob (according to the book) flew to Las Vegas to crash the party and put an end to any thoughts of Iacocca returning to Chrysler. He probably then devised "The Merger of Equals" to Daimler-Benz, given that he used to work for GM-Europe and probably knew some D-B operatives from interactions back then, the "sold" that idea to D-B, which set the stage for what to was come later. The interesting part of the Iacocca book is its last chapter. He makes the case that Chrysler will need a global partner for further growth and expansion past the USA. At that time, he mentioned FIAT as the best partner due to their large European market network (not the "Fix it again, Tony" acronym). At and prior to that. Chrysler had had European partners in Simca, Roots Group, and such, so the FIAT mention was curious to me, back then. As things worked out, the FIAT involvement with Chrysler was one of the best things that could have happened after the disastrous Cerberus "involvement"! As good of a "fit" as Cerberus was supposed to be for buying Chrysler out of its last bankruptcy, that entity knew more about "numbers" than "the car business". Importing a lot of people who had previously worked for Lexus and Toyota to Chrysler to "rebuild an American Iconic brand", some people it later seemed that Toyota was glad for them to be somewhere else, it seemed. Many "resume builders", too. In reality, it seemed that they held Daimler in high regards for how they did business and the product decisions they made, moreso than might be expected, when that didn't appear to be the actual situation. It seemed that many of the Daimer-related product decisions got poor results. Taking the popular NEON and replacing it with "a lifestyle vehicle" names Caliber, for example. Then taking their next-larger car, the Sebring sedan, and apparently orientating it toward people who would have bought a new 1953 Chrysler, back then, and wanted something like that again, but smaller, for their retirement years. Like I mentioned, lots of mistakes were made by many in all of the OEMs back then. Mistakes which the later generations failed to learn from, only to repeat the same or similar mistakes themselves, later on. MANY things in those four books which could serve as business school Case Studies of how to do things and how NOT to do things, for best successes in the future. Thanks for your time and consideration. Enjoy! NTX5467

I like the CL car. I consider it to be "nicely optioned" with the road wheels and AM/FM radio. Power windows and locks would be nice, but I suspect those doors closes nicely with few other sounds than the latch doing its thing. Ages ago, there were some comments in an "Old Cars Weekly" newspaper which said that while high-option cars might be nice, that the base model with few options can be the easiest cars to keep a long time. They still have all of the virtues of the more-optioned cars, but without the durability issues of those options. Less chrome to chase should the need be, too. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

The OTHER issue with those Rivs is that the dealers probably didn't know "how" to order them and "how" to best sell them. The pictured car is pretty advanced for back then. I liked the push button switches, which were also similar to the N-cars, but they did tend to cause more problems than the earlier style of switches, as I recall. Composite headlights were still new, back then, and probably cost more to do. As things have transpired, I'd much rather have individual sealed beams than composite headlights in the current timeframe. NO need to refinish them due to age deterioration of the clear lens and easier to replace. PLUS probably costing less to produce, although there were more parts involved. Therefore, considering all of the new stuff on those Rivs, the headlights were probably "cost savers" in the grand scheme of things. One other item I recall is the Rivs had a plastic-filmed inside surface on the windshield. Common razor blades could not be used to scrape inspection stickers and such from their surface without damaging it. SO, "plastic razor blades" were sent to the dealers for such activities. The film was there for occupant protection in the case of an accident, IIRC. Chassis tuning was another area that GM was struggling with. All of the cars had struts by that point in time, which did not ride as smooth as the prior suspension systems did, nor were as "sound isolated" from the occupants. Buick opted for the softer side of things, as a harkening to the earlier orientations of smoothness. Possibly a mistake, too. I rented a fwd LeSabre for a weekend excursion and was appalled at how little control the struts had, as they were just too soft. With the cruise set at 70mph, some imperceptible dips in the Interstate roadway would use ALL of the available travel, up and down, before the car finally settled back to level. This surprised me, but when I saw a first-gen C-car on the access road, doing the same thing, I just shook my head "What were they trying to do?" I think that Buick felt they were in trouble on many levels, back then. Trying to be a technology leader was not working, especially combined with corporate production cost goals. Going a step higher with voice command controls, as many cars also now have, might have made things better for the Graphic Display Center. Another item about that GDC, by pushing two buttons at once, for a few seconds, would put the screen into vehicle diagnostic mode. Which would allow techs to fully diagnose many things from the driver's seat. Cadillac, I believe, had this capability too. Kind of like an on-board scanner of sorts. Unfortunately, those things vanished after this platform of E-body ended. The issue with the mass air flow sensors seemed to vanish after this platform was replaced, too. Buick was adamant, in their TSBs, that ONLY GM-supplied MAFs be used as some aftermarket brands had poor solder joints in their circuit boards and poor quality control. All valid points, very possibly. I figured, later, that it had to do with the GM suppliers as GM was obviously seeking lower pricing from them. Each of the three model years had different MAFs. At the corporate levels, there was a good bit of "group think" in the board rooms. A corporate big wig got "some" idea and the underlings found ways to support those things, rather than "discuss" them with facts, by observation. Not just at GM, but elsewhere, too. Many opportunities were missed as people seeming didn't dare "dream big" and head in that direction. Unfortunately, IF they might, it was "the wrong dream", following the status quo generally was followed, which had its own pitfalls. Obviously having a "little brother" N-car look substantially the same was NOT a family tie that worked, especially when the introduction sequence was "backward". Which further accentuated the apparently "no internal conversations" orientation I observed from GM at the time. Another reason they had issues, by observation. Which also tended to be the result of some internal actions which eventually led to Oldsmobile being deleted unnecessarily. An observed issue was that GM had TWO fwd platforms with wheelbases only about ONE inch different. The X-car was shorter and the N-car was longer. Which also generated different divisional differences, too. IF GM had combined them into one platform, with completely different outer skins, they would have saved more money than they suspected. Engineers doing their best to advance their craft, as stylists tried to maintain expected styling cues and orientations while also moving things forward, with some "new marketing orientations" based on vehicle price points rather than customer demographics, all conspired to make GM what it was in the middle 1980s era, in the smaller platforms. It took quite a many years for GM to learn how to build unibodies which were quiet and smooth, by observation. At a time when corporate funding was thin, in retrospect. Just some recollections, NTX5467

First year 455 should still be a 10.0 compression ratio, so possibly not as thirsty as the lower compression ones a year later?

Type A Suffix A atf is still around, just not in all of the usual places (big box chain auto supplies and such), but in other places. Like neighborhood convenience stores where some of the older cars might reside. A better alternative to the later Dexron-family fluids would be the specific "power steering fluid" which GM sold (all the way back to 1961!) and has sold into the 1990s and later. That fluid is clear and waxy looking, but works well and will not leak where the later Dexron-family atf will leak in power steering systems. Key thing, "will not leak", as the used cars I've bought with "red" fluid in them, which also smelled like atf, did seep through the rubber section of the hoses. Flushing and refilling with the GM PSF cured those. In the 1970s, the GM PSF (pint?) part number was "1050017", so look for that compatibility in any online searches for PSF in places like www.Valvoline.com. Valvoline sells a MaxLife PSF which is compatible, is available, and works in my 2005 GM cars with no problems as to seepage and such. In the earlier days of Power Steering, the OEMs probably sought to use low-viscosity fluids which were available locally at gas stations. The earlier automatic transmission fluids were probably akin to "hydraulic oil" used in farm tractors' hydraulic systems, possibly, but with some additional additives for the automotive applications. It would be "good sense" to use the same fluid in the power steering systems, too. Brake fluid (another common fluid at gas stations) went into the convertible top hydraulics, for better or for worse). KEY things were that the various rubber seals in these systems were compatible with the fluids they sealed against. In the 1960s or later, it was common to "top off" a power steering system which was just a bit low with red atf. Similar viscosities, but a different fluid and different additives in it. If the system had a leak, over time, the system would get full of atf and start to seep, by observation. FEW people seemed to understand, at the time, that the rubber in the system needed to match the fluid and its additives as all they souight to do was to keep the system operating. On the vehicles we bought new, or recently new, which had the correct OEM fluids in them from new, maintained that way, they NEVER leaked or seeped. The few that I bought used which had their power steering systems "contaminated" with atf, did or wer seeping when I bought them. Changing the fluid to the OEM-spec fluid stopped that immediately. The pump "whine when hot" might be related to the atf in the system, but it also might be related to internal wear. Just some thoughts and my experiences, NTX5467

The styling on these Buicks was much more conservative than the '59-'60 cars, then the downsized '61-'62 cars, by comparison. Yet the engineering seemed to be bulletproof. Many of the vehicle systems were reaching their upper plateau of excellence at the time. Engines, transmissions, hvac, power steering, etc. were all very good. Which the '65-'66 models continued with their snazzier styling. Of course, as the Buick television ads of the earlier 1950s emphasized, it might be a lower-priced Buick, but it still has all of the great Buick attributes of the more expensive Buicks. Still a prestigious car to own, just a few dollars more than "The Low Priced Three" of the time. When it being a Buick was more important than which Buick it might be. Enjoy! NTX5467

"Boost" is also controlled by the size of the orifice/fitting where the pressure line attaches to the rear of the power steering pump. Too much boost results in "breathe on it" steering with even more minimal finger use, by observation. Seems like I found about three or four different fitting orifice sizes? Larger orifice size means more boost and vice versa. Now, you need some of the polyurethane front sway bar end link grommets to make the existing sway bar act like its about 20% stiffer for flatter cornering. Moog has them as to other front suspension parts suppliers. The GM OEM ones on the '79 WS-6/7 TransAms were white and inexpensive. Other aftermarket ones were red. Moog has light blue ones which are a bit softer, but still polyurethane. Thanks for the information, NTX5467

Your best option would be to search for a complete cluster from a salvage yard vehicle. NO aftermarket "boxes" for that vehicle. It's not a Camaro, Firebird, or other "popular" vehicle for such a modification, unfortunately. Where are you located? From what I've seen, many just use surface mount gauges and then manufacture a flat piece into which to install the gauges, then wire them all in, with the wiring and such being behind the mounting panel. The trick would then be to find a way to integrate the mounting panel to the existing tabs on the padded dash item. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

When I came online in the Chevy parts department, we were using the later model cutter, which had movable tabs for the numbered cut depths. The earlier "round disc" version (pictured) was archived. The earlier codes were in a smaller black loose leaf notebook, with the groove code of the particular key the codes were for in each section. Before the round disc cutter, I seem to recall some stories about using a micrometer and file to do the cuts with. Which would make that round disc cutter working on the round head B&S keys, which would go back into the middle 1950s. Somewhere in the 1970s or so, the codes were printed on 8.5"x11" paper, stapled together, from Curtis. Again, with the groove code of the key blank that the cut codes were for listed at the top of the page. Once I learned how to read the 5 cut levels, it was easy to look at a worn key and duplicate the code onto a new key. We also had one of the electric key "grinder" cutters for duplicating keys, but if you duplicated a worn key, you got a new key with that worn code, so I liked to do hand cuts instead, to very good success. We later got the leased computerized cutter mechanism to do the 10-cut GM keys. But even THEY need to be correctly calibrated in order to cut a key by code, correctly. As GM proliferated their keys in later years, it was much less expensive to lease that cutter and its cartridges, as I recall. Then came the "side-cut" keys currently in use. Basically a numeric-control cutter which also uses 5 levels of side cuts. Another lease situation. No real secrets in that mix, either, IF you know what you are looking at. When the computerized cutter appeared, I would have preferred to continue with the hand cutters, UNTIL I was told how much they cost. Yikes! Plus needing one for EACH of the different GM carlines which had different-series keys. Just some recollections, NTX5467

In Texas, they started to use "The LIttle Black Book" pricing for tax purposes at time of title transfer. I know it works for newer vehicles, but not how well it might be for vintage vehicles. T The original target market for that information was normal used car auction results, which would be lower than suspected, as that is what the dealers pay for the cars at auction. There is a valuation tool at www.Hagerty.com , which is probably similar to others that are online, just have to head toward #2 for a vehicle that has not been fully concours restored (which would be #1), then go down toward #5 from there, as needed. The car looks pretty good! Wondering what has been done since the BaT auction? Remember, too, it is a "more door", what I'd term "a normal car" rather than a flashy hardtop Wildcat. Wondering if the interior fabrics are original or have been replaced? If original, they can be fragile and might be easily destroyed by daily use, due to "dry rot" and such. Also curious about that large electric fan in front of the radiator. On a non-a/c car "up there", compared to in TX? Hope this might help, NTX5467

Wheels can be a matter of opinion, but the artistic nature of them should be considered in how they interface with the car. By observation, many seem to desire to put a more muscular look into a vehicle's look hat was never intended by the car's designers . . . which can be a BIG FAIL. I like wire wheel covers, but many were heavier than the looked. Staggered wheel widths, front to rear, is another BIG FAIL to me, trying to give the car "stance" which also means "muscular" to me, no matter what engine is under the hood. Personally, I can see wanting a 15x7 wheel. Some 17" of the right design can look good too, as there are some 17" tire sizes which are less money than 15" sizes, of the same approximate diameter, which can help handling a bunch. But still staying within the OEM orientation of what the car was about. Maybe some VN-501s in either diameter might be an option rather than the repro chrome road wheels? Not a fan of center caps and trim rings, except on a Chevy. Sell the original wheels to somebody who might need them! Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Thanks for the information. WHERE does the ratio change come from? Different gears which the bearings move or elsewhere? In the earlier days of power steering, the normal steering gear ratios were used, which could be up to 6 turns lk to lk, but with power assist for easier steering wheel turning. By the earlier 1960s, most of GM was using that ratio, as was Ford, as Chrysler went to the 3.5 turns set-up. GM gravirtated toward that radio too, until the first variable-ratio Saginaw boxes caem out in about 1965. Some of the later boxes were more like 2 turns on some of the Camaro/Firebird cars, as I remember. Allegedly, "road feel" is varied with the internal torsion bar in the box. Combined with the "high-effort" items, a more "European" feel was supposed to result, but it was more like decreased boost, I suspect. The GM800 gear box has been used in circle track racing for decades. Some rebuilders which cater to that crowd can rebuild a GM800 box with a desired gear ratio the customer might desire. Enjoy! NTX5467