NTX5467

I like the gear spacing on the T200R4 better than on the T700 automatic, just remember than whatever rear axle you end up with needs to be factored down by approx .70 to get the final drive ratio in OD. The T200 variations probably take less power to run than the similar T700 too, which can affect acceleration and fuel economy a certain amount too. Also be cognizant of what RPM in OD the engine will be running. In a smaller engine (as anything below 350 cid could be termed), it is VERY EASY to over-cam the engine--easier than you might expect. From my own experiences, anything more than about 210 degrees at .050" duration is too much for anything with a 2.7 or less final drive ratio and basically 300 cid. Modern cam profiles CAN work better than some of the more vintage ones, I suspect, so in that orientation, still keep the duration figures I mentioned in mind and then look for lift in the ranges up to about .450" or so. IF you get the right cam for a 2000rpm cruise (with the tire and rear axle ratio combination on the vehicle), then add a more low/mid-range torque-oriented intake manifold and a spreadbore or 600 cfm carb to the mix, with some sort of improved exhaust system (basic duals of about 2.25" would probably work well with a pair of lower restriction mufflers), AND an upgraded ignition system of some kind, you will probably end up with a vehicle that runs well enough as is rather than spend the additional money and time to do a trans swap that would also necessitate a rear axle ratio adjustment to make everything work right. Enjoy! NTX5467

In the later 1960s, when bigger air flow carbs were needed for more horsepower and larger displacement engines, the "spreadbore" 4bbl was born. In prior times, most 4bbls had just slightly smaller primary throttle bores than the secondaries (i.e., the 625cfm Carter AFB had throttle bores of 1.56/1.69, the Holley 600cfm was 1.56/1.56, Holley 780& Carter AFB 750 were 1.69/1.69) but the spreadbore 4bbls typically had 1.38/2.25 sizing for the QJet, TQuad, and similar Ford carb for about 750cfm flow specs. There were some QJets and TQuads with 1.50/2.25 that were rated at 800cfm. The idea was to get higher velocity through the primaries (1.38") so that finer fuel metering could be accomplished. Yet the smaller size also restricted total air flow, hence the need for the larger secondaries to make up for it. I think they usually had "triple step" venturis to achieve the higher flow past the fuel outlet nozzle. Holley also came out with OEM spec and aftermarket spreadbore 4bbls too. Also consider that many 4bbl engines were also considered "performance" engines, so they usually had rear axle ratios a little lower than the "highway" gears of 2bbl engines AND single exhaust engines back then. There is also an excellent book on Rochester carbs that came out in the later 1970s. It goes into fine detail of how to tune the carbs for better performance AND fuel economy at the same time--it all relates to which metering rod/jet combination is in the primary side of the carb AND the power piston spring that phases the metering rod position versus manifold vacuum (key point in fuel economy issues!). As you might suspect, the Rochester QuadraJet spreadbore carb is highly tuneable across a huge band of displacements (230 to 455+) and vehicle applications. ALL of these things are covered in the Rochester book. As mentioned, some engine/carb/cam combinations just seem to work better than others. There were many road test reports of QJet-equipped GM cars getting 20+mpg in some highway cruise situations at approx 60 mph or so, not all of them with highway gears. Olds had a "Turnpike Cruiser" setup on some (approx) 1967 Cutlasses (400 V-8, QJet, hot air air cleaner, 2.56 rear axle, leaner carb calibration which was aided by the constant air inlet temp of at least 100 degrees F) that would break 20mpg at 70mph and still outrun a stock base GTO (article was in CAR LIFE magazine back then). Even as some of the '72 era Olds Cutlass 350s were "desmogged" (illegal but popular back then), ALL of them would consistently hit the low 20s mpg, just as later Olds 307s in Delta 88s (might not run fast or quick) would typically hit middle 20s mpg on the highway (typically 2.41 rear axle gears, 3 speed automatic). It was mentioned, back then, that keeping cruise rpms in the 2000rpm range was optimum for fuel economy. If you take a current production vehicle and check the rpms, that's pretty typical in most cases (except in cases where the engine has enough lower rpm torque to efficiently pull the car at lower rpms--late model LeSabres would take 82+mph to get to 2000rpm in OD, for example and still not have to get into the "power mixture" or downshift to go up normal hills). In the later 1970s, Chrysler published some highly technical fuel economy guides. They detailed the EPA ratings of each of their cars AND THEN went on to detail how certain options (a/c, rear axle ratio) would affect those ratings in the "real world". In many cases it took more axle ratio change to change ultimate cruise fuel economy than you might suspect--back then. With respect to camshaft issues . . . by observation, best fuel economy will happen when "cylinder filling" is in its more optimum orientation. This CAN be related to engine size and rear axle ratio (affecting cruise rpm), but does not always have to be. When cylinder filling starts hitting the "sweet spot" (we used to call it "coming up on the cam"), power and response will increase as can efficiency. In some cars, you can really feel it happen as throttle response gets much tighter (at cruise rpms) and can well correspond with the meat of the torque curve "hump". Recall that 2bbl cams were generally milder (less duration and lift) than the 4bbl cams? 2bbl V-8s were more about general driveability and fuel economy than 4bbls were, historically (and pre-spreadbore). In other cases, where cams were more optimized for the particular engine size (yes, there IS a relationship there!!!--email for my devised formula of this very issue), all it took was a 4bbl and dual exhaust to make them run better (even with stock exhuast manifolds). Key things in most any consideration of fuel economy at cruise . . . low load and high intake manifold to keep the metering of the carb/FI in the "max economy" orientation and ignition timing vacuum advance maximized, lower rpms (say, 2300rpm and lower, but can be affected by the cylinder filling situation mentioned above) that don't lug the engine and the engine still has enough torque to moderately accelerate or go up hills without the power mixture kicking in, lower drag (tires and aerodynamics) in the vehicle (but if you have enough engine, this is less of a factor, it would seem), and a reasonably steady cruise speed (modern electronic cruise controls can aid this greatly, but the earlier ones could too). Vehicle weight can be a factor, but not typically at steady-state cruise conditions--it CAN be a factor in roads that have elevation changes every so often. Aerodynamic drag (or lack thereof) can be a factor as higher speeds (or convertible tops being lowered!) come into play, with respect to available reserve engine power (that "power mixture" situation, again) as evidenced by the amount of throttle pedal travel left at those elevated speeds PLUS how easily the engine might want to accelerate the vehicle at those higher speeds. For some of the early 1970s engines, emission controls seemed to add some items into the mix that did hurt fuel economy, other than just compression ratio decreases. How much the "hurt" was seemed to be dependent upon the particular engines and their manufacturers--and other parts of the spec combination. By observation, the fed-spec 1969 Buick 430-4 V-8 that many in here have raved about it's seemingly better-than-it-should-be highway fuel economy in Electras probably came in at the right time to be as good as it was. Compression ratios were still high for 4bbl engines, only basically "engine calibration modifications" for emission controls, the QJet calibration for power and efficiency that obviously hit the "sweet spot" of things, and a great torque curve that worked in combination with the highway gears expected to be in a car of that nature. Put the same engine in a Skylark GS with 4.33 rear axle gears and it could well lose all of those fuel economy advantages real quick, but it definitely would run very quickly! As mentioned, driving style and how it's impacted by the various vehicle equipment items can be more of an issue rather than just the equipment specs themselves. Electronic fuel injected vehicles (as most everything is now) are ESPECIALLY critical to driving style and use of the cruise control--as evidenced by driving one with the "Instant Fuel Economy" readout on the Driver Information Center display! You might THINK you're doing things to drive economically, but the display will clearly point out that you are not--even at highway speeds, a little too much pressure on the accel pedal can knock about 7mpg out of the cruise economy real quick and you would never know it, until you punched the cruise control and watched how things happen. Carburetors are not quite that critical, but when the power mixture is activated with lower levels of intake manifold vacuum, fuel economy decreases a good deal. In some carbs, the power mixture can start coming in at 10.5" Hg and full on by about 6.5" Hg. In some cases, 10.5" Hg is just lower than where some engines are at idle and in gear with the a/c going! Even if manifold might be the normal 18" Hg at idle and out of gear! Regarding carb adjustments . . . many earlier model engines did idle at 500rpm out of gear. They'd tolerate that as they had milder cams and seemingly higher velocity intake manifolds and smaller carb throttle bores than in later years. But you might also notice that when a/c came into the mix, there were additional specs for engines with a/c, regarding idle speeds. Then, emission controls came into the mix and idle speeds were increased again (for better mixture control and handling). The time honored idle mixture setting was done with a vacuum gauge (before dwell tachs were in wide availability) by simply setting the idle speed to what worked right and then maximizing the manifold vacuum at idle with the mixture screws. Smoooooth idle, but not the best fuel use. In 1969, the "leaner" settings were in place, which typically required the use of a dwell tach to do "right". There were still basic rpm targets to hit, but now rather than use just the "max vacuum, max rpm" settings, you leaned the mixture out to get a "20 rpm drop" with each idle mixture screw and then kept going back and forth until the specified idle rpm and best mixture combination was obtained. The method I devised on my father's 1969 Chevy C-10 pickup with a 350 4bbl V-8 seemed to work well. That year of GM pickup and Turbo400 transmission had the line pressure seemingly raised (or the accumulator spring was stiffer in the transmission) such that when the idle rpm was at spec, it went into gear harder than you'd expect--they were ALL that way that year, by observation. He didn't like that so he had his mechanic set the idle speed down. When it was "there", it felt as expected but the rpm was too low to sit in gear talking in the field (for longer than you might expect) and it not overheat (not enough air flow through the radiator). Having a single exhaust, I discovered that when the idle speed was set as "they" liked it, there were individual exhaust pulses that could be felt at the end of the pipe (in gear). I discovered that just slight increase in idle speed would smooooth out the exhaust pulses until it was one even flow. At that point, I started going back to the idle mixture adjustments to get "no smell" (i.e., obvious hydrocarbon emissions) too. To do that, I'd put my hand at the end of the pipe, in the gas flow, and then smell my palm to check for the hydrocarbon smell. When there was none, basically, I then refinessed the idle speed. It took a few trips between the carb and the exhaust pipe initially, but when I got it set to my procedures, it would sit and idle in gear, smooooothly, and not get hot or cause any other problems. What did seem to bother me was that when it was then put into "Neutral/Park", the idle rpm went to 780rpm--which by all other orientations as "too high", but it worked well. I then used the same procedure on other cars we had and usually ended up pretty close to their specified idle speeds in "Neutral/Park", but after I'd done the "sniff test" for the idle mixture. Later on, I replaced the QJet with a 450cfm Holley "spreadbore replacement" carb with a plunger-operated power valve rather than the metering rods/power piston in the QJet. In that carb, I'd do the same procedure, but it was tougher to do the sniff test as it was a more efficiently-metered carb. Still, I could do it and ended up with the same 780rpm idle in Neutral/Park. I found it highly interesting that at that 780rpm idle, the sensitivity on the idle screws was very tight, but when the idle rpm was dropped below 750rpm, that tight sensitivity went away and things got really "spongy" in that respect. Who would have thought that 30rpm could make that much difference in air flow vs metering/adjustment characteristics? Anyway, point is that if you're going to get the best carb adjustment of the idle circuit, it can take some awareness of what's happening and how it all interfaces and inter-relates to each other. It's not always a "set it to spec" and "lick-it-and-stick-it-it's done" situation by any means. Factory specs are usually pretty close, but sometimes there can be a little further fine tuning or finessing that might vary from the stated specs that will turn out a little better for the particular vehicle combination. Every vehicle has their own "sweet spots" all though it--idle speed and mixture are just one--but when some or most of those sweet spots are found and exploited, it makes the vehicle operate THAT much better and knowing that you got it there is an obvious just reward all by itself. It will take some time and attention to detail, but the trip is worth it, usually. Enjoy! NTX5467

Contrary to popular belief, there are some people that actually need the size a Suburban or Expedition have. For them, it's not an option. If they did downsize to a smaller vehicle, it would take more than one vehicle to do the same functions. Although the term "sport utility vehicle" was first used to describe a Jeep Cherokee (4-door "wagon"), the term is now used on anything that is not a "car" per se (although many people now call any motorized conveyance a "car", even if the chassis is truck-based). The designation was applied to vehicles that allowed a younger demographic of people to endulge in their more active lifestyles (i.e., hunting, fishing, camping, bike riding, competition sports) while also having the ability to serve as a daily-driver vehicle during the week. A multi-use vehicle rather than "a car". Yet there are many other people that purchase SUVs for other reasons, when a normal car might fit their needs just as well. These are some of the people that have resulted in the "crossover" SUV coming in to play, I suspect, plus people not needing minivans any more, but still needed some ocassional utility capabilities. If you consider the Dodge Magnum and other similar "wagon"-type vehicles, they could probably replace a good number of the larger SUVs on the road--if people would consider them. AWD versions too. But there ARE reasons that people would desire to hold onto their truck-chassis SUVs too, the least of which is a higher vantage point from which to see traffic up ahead--and for others to see you talk on your cell phone or watch the DVD your rear seat passengers are watching. While "SUV" has become a nasty word, if you also consider that they have similar interior size and cargo capacities to many luxury vehicles of the middle 1970s, yet get a good bit better fuel economy (if not the same) than those prior vehicles did. Therefore, the trade-off is not too bad--heavier, more powerful, spacious and more luxurious interiors (typically), and more fuel efficient. Only problem is that fuel efficiency is now judged against a 30mpg (EPA Highway rating) orientation rather than a 20mpg orientation (as in earlier times). We've lived through fuel crashing the $1.00/gallon price, the $2.00/gallon price, the $3.00/gallon price in 2005 (which receded to the $2.00/gallon levels), and now prices are now spiking back into the $3.00/gallon range. Therefore, we are not in new territory, just territory we wish we were not in and might desire some relief from. We'll get through it again, but when we get past it, there needs to be some infrastructure additions to keep this from happening again next year! Just some thoughts, NTX5467

It seems that ExxonMobil has been the center of attention on this round of corporate profit AND retired CEO compensation only AFTER Exxon and Mobil merged--not before. Same with Amoco and BP. This is how you know when a merger really works, when the profits of the combined entity are at least as much as the sum of their prior totals. USA capitalism at its best? These "don't buy . . ." things have been around since gas prices started toward the $2.00/gallon range, probably prior to that too. The ONLY way it could work is if everybody bought fuel on the same day, not in a somewhat staggered schedule. So what if the boycott day happens when you have enough fuel already to last you a few days after the designated boycott day? If we can presume that there will always be a certain volume of fuel purchased on any given day, if it is not bought from some specified companies, it'll be bought from somewhere else. THEN what happens if the other companies suddenly start showing greater corporate profits, which then becomes newsworthy? Basically, a one-day boycott is worthless. It will not cause a backup in the supply chain between the refinery, the local distributors, and the local retailers! It might make things a little easier on the tanker drivers the day after the one-day boycott, but they'll make up for it in a few days anyway. Having a slack day or two in the supply chain will not be enough to impact refinery production/inventories to a significant degree. What might work is for everybody to try to extend their not buying fuel from one day to more like three more days per fillup--consistently. Conservation and planned trips rather than just going around harrum-scarrum, plus not driving above the posted speed limit in the appropriate lane of the roadway. Nothing magical about these things, they've been around much longer than the "boycott______" issues have. In the scope of the no-more-MTBE situation, it's been known for quite a while that MTBE would be replaced by ethanol in the fuels' blends. Yet the ethanol producers (by press reports) just seemed to get their programs cranked up a few weeks ago, if then, for the coming greater demand for their products. Nor were enough tank trucks contracted to haul the ethanol to DFW or Houston! It has been reported in a manner that makes it seem that the ethanol industry suddenly openned its eyes and went "WHOOOPSSSS!!!!" we'd better get busy. I'm not sure what it takes to get the refineries ready to use ethanol instead of MTBE, but I would not think it would take weeks to make those changes (just my gut suspicion). Initial predictions were that our TX fuel prices would be spiked for about 60 days, but with shortages now happening on the east coast, it might be longer than that. In the modern "oil" world, there are exploration companies, production companies, refinery operations, distribution operations, and retail operations. At each step of the process, there can be a multitude of operating partnerships comprised of any number of major oil company groups. In order to know WHICH companies are doing business where and with whom, you almost have to have a scorecard as some companies are NOT in the Arab lands, but are in other places and vice versa. Some of the lower level oil companies (at the retail level) are and have been deeper into exploration and drilling than some of their larger associates--and vice versa. I concur that refinery expansions and new refineries being built in the North American region have been somewhat hobbled for the past 30 years. IF the oil companies have such huge amounts of money in the bank, why hasn't somebody tried to "unlock shareholder value" in the company as they've tried to do in other situations???? Or are these same people active players in the wholesale gasoline futures market? In reality, the fuel price situation is supply/demand pricing at its classic best. Just as a low production or 35+mpg automobile that is sold for MSRP+ rather than discounted. Some transportation industries just pass the additional fuel costs on to their customers, but when transporation costs result in an item costing more, will those prices come back down when the fuel price issues stop being issues? Probably not, many might suspect. End result, the consumer feels the triple-whammy affect on a weekly basis. Other global economies have recently increased their crude oil requirements too, which can have some variable affects on the price of fuel in the USA regions. I remember in the early 1980s, when fuel and gas prices were spiking somewhat. Many people traded their larger vehicles for smaller ones, thermostats were set at 78 in the summer and 65 in the winter. People bought sweaters and such to wear at home in the winter, typically. Yes, they were doing their part to conserve energy (which should have also correlated to saving money!), but the fuel prices just kept going up to (then) astronomical levels. Putting more expensive gas in their smaller vehicles had no real impact on total dollars spent on gasoline--total amount saved on fuel use was not that different than before, which meant that all of the changes that many people made were not cost effective, but were done for the greater good of the society. Seems there was a "danged if you do, danged if you don't" attitude back then? Everybody's looking for some way to get some relief from the higher fuel costs, which is understandable, but when you consider all of the side issues (not listed in the flyer) that are not mentioned in the boycott email/communication, just one day or a few days/week will not have a significant effect. In the middle 1970s, when there was a fuel "shortage", there were many news reports floating around that tankers were anchored just off the coast waiting for orders to come in and unload. It was also reported that the fuel inventory shortfall (then) was about 5%--this was when things were transitioning toward unleaded fuels AND it was known to take about 5% more crude oil to make unleaded fuel than it did to make the previously-normal regular, low-lead fuels. Now, we're transitioning from MTBE as a fuel oxygenate additive to ethanol (a renewable energy source). It seems that any change in refinery operations seems to cause a major hiccup in an already stressed supply situation, whether it's the seasonal change or similar. New refineries don't just suddenly appear (as Samantha wiggles her nose!), so the "new refinery" orientation is still several years in the future. Got to have basic supporting infrastructure too! Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Chevrolet has also used separate "unit" heat riser valves rather than valves internal with the exhaust manifold. Some are still available (1960s Corvettes and musclecars where restoration correctness can drive the market) whereas the later model vacuum-operated "early fuel evaporation" versions are discontinued (and were pricey when available). Key thing, which would also be "the hard part", would be to find a Chevy heat riser gasket/seal that would match the Buick (or other GM makes') internal diameter and bolt pattern and then see what valve it would take to mate with it. By the time that research was finished, the time expended could have already been used to effect some fix or whatever, with all due respect. A good thought, though. Enjoy! NTX5467

There are currently some "lead replacement" additives on the market. There used to be one from the 104+ Octane Booster company called "Real Lead"--only thing is that to get a 20 gallon tank of fuel to even the prior "low lead" levels of real lead, it would take about 10 bottles of the stuff (1 quart each), which is NOT very cost effective. Lucas Oil has an additive with "polymer" in it, you can check out their website for further information. I haven't used it, just found it the other day when I was looking around. Bardahl has a few versions too, with or without octane booster in it. When I was using the Stewart-Warner Alemite CD2 lead replacement, which usually has a measuring vial on the bottle, the car I was using it in (with a Carter ThermoQuad 4bbl carb) suddenly developed a "really hard start" condition (after sitting for a good while between being driven), which was later found to be a stuck-in-place check valve for the accelerator pump circuit. I had earlier found out in a motorhome magazine article on such things, that there were two basic chemistries in lead replacement additives--one was sodium-based and the other one was not (I don't recall exactly what it was). Possibly the CD2 additive was the sodium based one and I might have mixed it a little too strong? These are my experiences so far, but if you don't drive that much and not that "hard", it's highly possible that you'll not have any problems in the short term--provided everything is as it should be now (valve guides and valve seats). Just some thoughts, NTX5467

This might be a few months past all of "the anger", but here's some comments of MINE in regards to national meets (I've been deeply involved in two Buick Club of America national meets, as in "host chapter operative and such", plus a good number of BCA regional and local meets PLUS about 15 years worth of local meets of the North Loop Dodge Performance Team/Cowtown Mopars club (judging, planning, etc.). I'm not sure why such anger in this thread here! It seems that something has been lingering below the surface for a good while, which probably SHOULD have been addressed at the General Membership meetings at a WPC National Meet SOMEWHERE! Now, let me state that as good as any single-marque national club might be, EACH club's membership has their own orientations of how they might like their yearly national meets (or quarterly or bi-annual or whatever) to be. Each group has their own "target" hotel/accomodation desires and price range. Each meet will, due to general custom, have a designated host hotel for the meet. This will be the focal point of the entire meet also. It will most probably be a nicer hotel and appropriately more expensive than other surrounding hotels/motels. This is a normal situation--period. Why stay at the host hotel? Other than convenience of being at the pulse/center of the meet activities, many hotels desire AND request a certain number of room-nights be purchased before they'll start pitching in "free" amenities for the meet (i.e., hospitality areas, free rooms for hospitality use by the members) AND also possibly less cost for other functions of the meet (registration areas and tables, banquet items, etc.). SO, there are justified reasons to advocate members stay at the host hotel. IF the requested number of room-nights is not purchased, then the club could possibly have to spend other money from the meet (or the corporate treasury!) to make up the difference. Prices of tours and banquet meals? These are profit centers of the meet just as registration charges are. If you're in business, you don't want to lose money and neither should the WPC in doing a national meet. Sure, you might go out and purchase a tour package from a vendor (as an individual) and go on the same tours as individuals, which would make you just another tourist rather than a part of the WPC group of friends. Many tours also request that a certain number of people go on each tour so they can plan for the correct number of busses and such. Many of these tours do NOT give discounts to groups, or what they do discount is not that great. IF you can buy a package deal from another source, if you don't go on ALL of the tours purchased, have you spent more than if you had bought the tour through the WPC meet? Your money, your judgment call. Sure, there will be alternative lodging in a reasonably close proximity to the national meet host hotel, BUT is it really any less expensive? Might you have the same guarantees that it'll be "suitable"? Might you end up in a flaky neighborhood and not know it? Many factors to consider! I know, I did a thorough search of the Burbank area and was later told by an associate that lived in Woodland Hills that some of my choices were not too good. I ended up not being able to go anyway, but I did do a good bit of research on that area. In some areas, EVERYTHING is reasonably expensive, but they can also tend to be noted tourist attractions rather than somewhere away from things. We found that out in trying to get alternative bids for the two Buick meets. Some places would work with us (one even was going to give us the WHOLE hotel from Wednesday to Sunday!) whereas others knew what they had and where they were and did not desire to bargain or negotiate. I, like many others, am not made of money or have large amounts of disposable income. I'd much rather find a good $65.00/night motel than spend twice that on a fancy hotel room that serves the same purpose--if I can. But again, scouting these things out is important. Not to mention the fact that at the host hotel, you're "already there" for any of the meet activities rather than having to drive a while AND pay of parking (in some cases). You have to consider the total package costs rather than just one aspect of it all! Now, for some things regarding the Mopar hobby in general. The WPC is a "general-orientation ALL Chrysler Product" club, just as the Buick Club of America or other single-marque clubs might be. It might NOT be the correct club for some Mopar enthusiasts, to be sure, but it CAN be for many other Chrysler-oriented enthusiats. It all depends upon what you desire from the group and what your vehicular orientation might be. IF somebody wants to learn about the Total World of Chrysler, then the WPC is a great place to start! But if your tastes and orientations might be more closely focused on a particular niche of the Chryselr World, then other clubs might better meet your needs. Even if you might not ever attend a WPC National Meet or any other related event, the club magazine is a GREAT resource for learning about many individual Chrysler products AND what made them the great vehicles they were/are. If you went out and got all of that information, you'd have a whole room full of books and have spent large sums of money to get them--period. It might not be a flashy magazine, but it has great CONTENT that makes up for that. Rather than say "There's nothing in there to interest me", why not take the time to read through the articles about cars that might not interest you and learn something? Plus get a much great appreciation of the cars and the people that put them on the road!!!! Unfortunately, not everyone is oriented toward those additional learning situations. In that case, a more closely-focused club in the area of their specific desires might be a better place for them to be. The Mopar hobby is full of these niche clubs, all which have a place in the total world of the Mopar hobby. By observation, NO car club is prefect for everybody. If you're deeply into Chrysler products in general, the WPC is a great place to be. If you might be more focused on some other Chrysler models or particular model years of body platforms or particular vehicular activities with those vehicles, then you can probably find something to your liking too. It's all out there! The AACA is a great organization, also, but that doesn't mean it's the best thing around for all automotive enthusiasts. By observation, the AACA (like other automotive hobby clubs) is having an "age of membership" issue in getting more younger members involved in the club. I've seen the local AACA regional newsletter and it appears that the bulk of its members are "retirement" age, with all due respect. KEY thing is to find a car club (locally, regionally, nationally, and/or internationally) that is a group of people that you can enjoy being around and also be somewhat active with. Even if you join the WPC for the club magazine, THAT's a great investment. As far as the national meets go, I know that Ken Angyal has done much legwork in the past and will continue to do so in the future (on WPC National Meets). Just because you might not like where the meet is one year, it might be somewhere you want to go in a future year. As always, CONSTRUCTIVE INPUT on future meet locations is good. Remember, too, these meets are planned at least two years in advance for many reasons, so don't say "Let's go _______ next year" when next year and the year after that is already contracted and announced. Cost of WPC National Meets . . . in looking at the Burbank meet (which I could not attend), it might appear that the meets are planned as a week of vacation for many attendees. This might be good, but some people can't afford to be gone that long or afford to stay in hotels for that long of a time. So, you pick and choose when you want to arrive and possibly choose a later arrival than for when meet registration opens for the first time on Tuesday. Just because there might be things to do on Tuesday or Wednesday does not mean you have to be there to do them if what you're really coming for is on Friday or the Saturday show. Use your own best judgment on these issues. If you might miss a tour on Wednesday, you might be able to make it up on your own later in the week. Your money, your time, your judgment call! I hope this might 'splain some things and clear up some others. Hollering and being bitter toward fellow club members (even if you might not be good friends) really serves NO good purpose. Remember, too, that all operatives of this and other similar groups work on a VOLUNTEER or "drafted" or "whose got the biggest lap" system. That means, "no pay". This can mean that webpages only get updated when they need to be updated or possibly on a monthly basis. That might not be soon enough for some, but it's a whole lot better than some car club websites I've been to where their Calendar of Events is two years old. I can tell you, member contributions to help ease some of these burdens is typically welcomed (provided the person has sufficient expertise in what they will try to do). It's SPRING!!! It's time to get out and drive the Chryslers!!! Time to enjoy things!!! Be happy!!!! Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Well, both orientations have merit. I concur that if it was put there for a reason, even if that reason belongs in a part of the country with much colder climates than where you now appear to be. For example, in a Chrysler factory heat riser rebuild kit for mid-'60s Chrysler B/RB (383/440) engines, there are two bronze bushings that the butterfly shaft rides on as "bearings" for it in the exhaust manifold. In many cases, the new bushings have a nice "press fit" in the exhaust manifold holes for them, but the internal diameter was too small, yet the shaft would fit. As the prior one (from the factory) had hung in the 1/3 open position, the service manager got an appropriate-sized reamer and "clearanced" the i.d., of the bushings so that the shaft fit tight, but was loose enough to allow the thermostatic spring to do its job. No exhaust noise, as many people have noted that many of those valves had, if they didn't also rattle at idle, but it worked for a good while and was easier to free-up with penetrating lube. My gut suspicion is that all of those kits, regardless of manufacturer, have pretty much the same stuff in them, but with different counterweights and thermostatic springs for particular applications. Plus having new bronze bushings in them. Knowing that they CAN be made to work reliably (with a little care and effort in assembly to make sure they will work), I'd be inclined to possibly increase the judging score if I knew it worked (rather than being a "dummy"). As judges are not supposed to touch anything on the car, IF the technician put the counterweight (with a valve "gutted" or dummied up) in the "hot" position , that could well be a dead giveaway of what had happened--IF the judge knew what they were looking at, with all due respect. Of course, cars sitting on the show field would all tend to have "cool" motors by the time the vehicles were judged ("cool" being defined as the ambient air temperature around the motor which would heat the air temperature to cause the valve to open). In this case, putting the counterweight position in something near the "cool" side of things, it might look more appropriate and not raise any questions. Once the engine was hot and somebody might look at it, they could then presume that it was stuck in that position and not worry any more about it. So, as both orientations (remove/defeat the valve's functionality or recondition the valve mechanism) are valid and have reasons for being desired, it might be advisable to make it look as if nothing had been done to it if it's internallly removed. To me, the less eyebrows raised on the judging field, the better. It might not matter to you, but it could very well matter to a future owner. A future owner/buyer that when finding one thing "not as intended", might start picking the car to see where other shortcuts might have been made. If the valve shaft is "leaking", then I suspsect the valve might still be functioning? If that's the case, possibly finding a bushing supplier (somewhere!) that could supply the bushings of the necessary inner and outer diameter might be all that's needed--but this could also be wishful thinking. Your car, your time and money, your judgment call. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Here's something else to consider . . . possibly. On many of the early 1960s GM V-8s, they had exhaust heat coming into the front of the intake manifold's (from the exhaust heat crossover passage in the center of the intake manifold, typically) carburetor mounting pad. It was there to help promote better cold-start driveability by adding some extra heat to the intake manifold just in front of the primary throttle bores of the intake manifold. How was this heat modulated? Via the heat riser valve on one of the exhaust manifolds. Acting like the automatic choke on the carb, when the ambient air surrounding the thermostatic spring which turned the counterweighted butterfly valve where the exhaust pipe bolts to the exhaust manifold, it would cause part of one bank's exhaust to go into the intake manifold, through the passage to the carb base plate mounting, and then back to the central heat crossover in the manifold, and then out of the engine via the other side's exhaust manifold. IF, like so many of those heat riser valves, it has stuck in the "on" position, extra doses of hot exhaust gasses are going places in a warmed-up engine where they normally might not be needed. Hence, more heat to the carb than it would normally get, which could result in today's modern fuels being more prone to evaporate from the carb float bowl(s) via the "bowl vent valve" (which is open at curb idle position) in a "hot soak" condition after the engine is turned off as the vehicle is parked. In the later 1960 model years, GM discontinued the use of that front heat track in the intake manifold. It was prone to getting clogged up with carbon and the issues it was supposed to help were not helped at all. Might even have been a "cost cutting" move as it obviously took extra machine work to configure the heat track itself. Not to forget that they took special carb base gasket sets too!!!! Considering that all of the other brands of cars that I've owned that had Carter AFBs and AVSs, they never were that hard to start after sitting several days nor did they exhibit the fuel smells being mentioned. All of those cars had engines that did not have the heat tracks in the intake manifolds and were in the later 1960s era. Just something I happened to think about that might be an issue in this case . . . IF the particular engine has one of the "heat track" intake manifold/carb setups. Enjoy! NTX5467

Is that part number on a parts tag, ink stamped, or whatever? Metal or soft trim? Sometimes, on the parts tag stuck to the part, there will be a production code in a smaller font somewhere on the tag. The colors and graphics on the tag might help by identifying the general year range when they used a particular parts tag (or at least when that particular part was manufactured). IF, there's a computer punchcard-like computer-printed tag, it should have an order date reference on it too, in one of the cells. None of these things might help identify the part's application, but they might narrow the model year range for research in the catalog. Rather than look specifically in a GM parts book for that part number, it might be better to look in some "archived" GM paper parts price books. If the number is a number change, it might reference the prior part number. If that particular part number was superceded, that will be noted too, with a date of when it changed. Many of those changes were listed in the back of the book, if I recall correctly (that's the only way they used to have of doing number changes for parts you might not stock or before everything was completely computerized--the "analog" orientation, you might say). Hope that might help, NTX5467

JohnD, I recall those days too. In those prior times, the union seemed to have to have "something" to make an issue of, be it dental insurance, guranteed income during low production times, or whatever. I concur that many of the issues that are now blamed for GM's financial problems really began about 20+ years ago. Of course, SOMETHING has to be blamed by the "experts", whether it's accurate or not! Having a little knowledge of what it's like to work (by observation) on an automotive assembly line, I am of the orientation that any "benefits" that the workers were given are VALID and GOOD for the type of work they do and in the "big box" environment they do it in. AND they need to be honored, NO MATTER WHAT!!! I suspect that many of those that call for these benefits to be decreased or diminished have never worked in an environment of that nature. Were the benefits better than many other industries? Probably. Were they expensive then? Probably not, comparatively speaking. Yes, it was a different world back then, but a contractual promise is a contractural promise whenever it comes time to pay up. Now, as Ed Wallace mentioned in one of his columns a while back, if you figure that many of GM's sales were to employees (something like 2 new vehicles/year/family were allowed, it seems), then you figure how many earlier employees took early retirement packages in the 1980s and 1990s, add in the prior loyal Oldsmobile customers that were put out "into the cold", so to speak, positioned against the yearly sales of Oldsmobile nameplate products. Now, when all of those figures are shaken up and laid on the table, there's probably enough lost sales to keep some of the lower volume car brands in business. Sales, gone forever, due to a combination of issues at different times in GM's recent history. Sales that went "somewhere else"--period. I suspect that if GM still had at least 1/2 of that number of sales, there might not be any financial issues at GM now. If 1/2 of that number of employees was still employed by GM, working rather than being "retired with benefits" or in a Jobs Bank, what might their corporate profits look like now, providing that they still had decent market share? To me, the whole issue of retiree benefits per vehicle produced (currently) is an unjustified smoke screen of sorts. It's an easy target, which might have some validity, but is NOT the whole story. Historically, the North American units of Ford and GM have had their good and bad profitability years. It was mentioned that Delphi-North America was the only unit of Delphi that was having profitability issues at this time. You can beat the drum about unions driving up the cost of consumer goods or being slow to work with management or whatever--some of which might have been more true in decades prior to 1980--but that's an "old song" that has lost its lustre and meaning, in many respects. BUT when you consider that similar unions exist in Europe and other places than the USA, that can put that whole argument into a somewhat different light, possibly leveling the playing field of sorts a little bit. There's probably very few big-ticket products we purchase today, "Made in the USA", that are not union made--I know, there are some foreign automobile plants in the USA that are not unionized and have voted NOT to be for many years now. -- And that's as far as I expect that thought to be taken in this discussion--period. -- IF General Motors did "sell out" to pay bills, it would take years to get it all taken care of. It would make many auctioneers mountains of money in commissions, I suspect. There would be some financial groups that would consider what they got to be a bargain, too, I suspect. And, I suspect, the Wall Street operatives would be commenting "I knew it would happen", while also not admitting to the fact that mostly everything GM has done (combining operating units, closing plants, selling prior assets, etc.) was done at the "suggestion" of people working on Wall Street to gain efficiencies and economies of operations and SHOULD have resulted in greater shareholder value (according to them). It seems that the Wall Street operatives, although having never worked in an automotive assembly plant or whatever ALWAYS seem to know how to run the business entity/operation they have extensively researched and reported on. To me, if you haven't been in the trenches, you probably don't know how to best fight the battle. Considering all of the trouble it would take to liquidate GM piece by piece, it might raise the question as to if it might be easier to just get it working right again and go on down the road? I'm sure many people would rather see it going good again rather than end up in a piecemeal auction! Also, this is not the first time that GM has had financial problems. Charles Nash and Walter Percy Chrysler were operatives in getting things "fixed" in those early years. Yep, they received seemingly unrealistic compensation for their work, but it seems that it was worth it as what they did really worked well. Lutz helped engineer the rebound at Chrysler Corp (post Lee) through strict cost initiatives and practices in procurement (which were aided by bringing the vendors in as "partners in design" rather than viewing them as traditional adversaries to be beat down on price). Maybe Lutz needs to get Bob Eaton and Tom Stallkamp at GM so they might work their magic again? In one respect, the financial issues facing the automobile manufacturers could well be a side issue of "industrial globalization". Using such globalization to your advantage is what Lutz was involved with in Europe--getting asssembly line machines where they could be shipped globally, where and when needed, from one plant to another and just plug them into the system and they work on that new line as they did on the old one--without having to buy a new machine to fit a particular assembly line environment, but use an existing machine instead. It has been mentioned that industrial globalization is part of the reason the middle-class (whose numbers were expanded by good wages, unionized wages even, in manufacturing plants which made consumer goods for an expanding post-war society) seems to be shrinking in numbers. Typically, when a well-paying industrial job goes away, the work the worker typically finds to replace it will not pay as well or have the same level of benefits as the prior factory job might have. What we might have seen with NAFTA could well be just a drop in the bucket to what might come in the future. -- I'll stop that train of thought right there, too. -- Any problem should serve as a feedback-loop learning experience. Many lessons can be learned from the complex mix of issues in GM's current "situation". NO simple answers to complex questions. Yet simple answers seem to be in abundance. Just some thoughts and observations . . . NTX5467

Dave, with all due respect . . . I, personally, do NOT care what Consumer Reports might report from their "Sample"--appliances and similar things they seem to do quite well with, but automobiles are not something I have observed them to continue their "winning ways" with. Regards, NTX5467

From what I recall of the road test commentaries of the Jag S-Type compared to the Lincoln LS, the Jag operatives were fine with it as it was built. Had the Jag styling cues that worked well and the road testers were also happy with the ride/handling calibrations for a Jaguar vehicle. But when they took the Ford Mondeo and tried to work the same magic, they HAD to do something different to differentiate it from the other Ford products. Not much to be spent on styling or other things that would be unique to that particular Baby Jag, so they made it ALL WHEEL DRIVE exclusively. Adding the weight and complication of AWD to that car might have made some Audi-oriented people look at it, but it also hurt the vehicle's performance and fuel efficiency. It was more about giving Jag an entry-level, lower price point car to gain new customers than anything else. I doubt anyone would call it a success in that venture. I also suspect the Jag that AutoWeek might have been referring to was the re-badged Mondeo rather than the S-Type--just my gut suspicion, all things considered. NTX5467

I concur with the bragging about the cost of repairs/checkups of an "exotic" import or a "desired" import as if it's part of their pride of ownership, yet when they have to spend a much lesser amount on repairs for a common domestic vehicle, they complain. If the domestic vehicle inconvenienced them or left them stranded somewhere, it's one of the worst things around, but if their import did that . . . well you can't let just anybody work on those things and they do "charge" for it. As much as Buick and GM have used the JDPowers survey results in their advertising, many "in the know" people are not seemingly aware of it and will still talk about Toyotas as being better vehicles (even with their higher "check-up" costs or other maintenance costs. In many respects, "54" is a "younger" age . . . which many younger people will find out after they reach that point and progress past it. Just as with vehicles, in prior times, you were eagerly dreaming of retirement and then your trip to the grave . . . but it's not THAT way anymore. Cars last much longer and people can and do to. I concur that the success of the lower price (entry level) brands hinge upon their low purchase cost and monthly payments. BUT there are also some highly competitive price points and monthly payments for many of the similar USA brands! Remember that GMAC and their new 36 month car notes, plus some good price points, put Buick in the #3 sales slot in 1955 and later. Buick never was supposed to be a "high volume" low priced vehicle, but was and is a more premium brand for a not-so-young new vehicle customer. In some cases, it takes somebody 54 years old to get to that point in life (and INCOME level) where they can reward themselves with a new vehicle like a Buick! Now, all of those age averages are for NEW Buick customers. Nobody has ever thought to mine the data for USED Buick customers, which, by observation, takes some huge jumps downward with each buyer of a particular Buick as the vehicle progresses into the 2nd and 3rd and later owners' possession. All of the alleged "experts" like to talk about sales numbers being down and a particular brand's placement in some sort of sales ranking, as if to justify talking about how "off" that product and its sales might be, in some sort of "loser" orientation. But when you look at the hard numbers of sales performance and position them against others in the same price point area, things suddenly take a different turn toward looking much better than initially represented. With all due respect, it seems that many media operatives have come to embrace the orientation that "doom and gloom" are what "news" is all about anymore. Who shot whom? Who's going to be executed for what indiscretion years ago? These things tend to get people's attention and motivate them to buy the news publications--much more so than "happy" or "Look what We Did" articles. That same mindset can also spill over into the columnists and such that a particular newspaper/publication purchases or employs themselves. These things tend to set the tone for the publication, in many cases, and in the case of automobiles, as CA is a highly import-oriented market, the LA Times probably feels they have a choice market to play to. I suspect that, at some point in time, such orientations might start to affect their bottom line profits and then they might reevaluate their orientations. Many people like to downgrade GM for their past "situations" and current situation, kind of like a "fair weather friend" in reverse. Yet these same people fail to look at the positives and what is already in the pipeline to happen in the near future. Things that are already funded to happen and generate profits for the company's operations in North America and World Wide. When new products are introduced, there's always the concern that they might not be "enough to save the company" in their articles too, seemingly. In many respects, the fate and fortunes of automobile companies seems to be somewhat cyclical--no matter who they might be or where they might be from. Little has been mentioned about problems with Mercedes, for example, or Toyotas, or Hondas, nor the "Chryslerization of Mercedes". Yet let some USA brand have a hiccup and it's front page news. Yes, those hallowed import brands, as with any other vehicle makes, DO have their problems just as USA brands do. No particular company builds a "perfect" vehicle, but some come closer than others do--which can also be a "point of reference" issue too, resulting in a moveable target situation. Jaguar is a prime example of a brand that had a horrid reliability record but was still cherished for its other qualities. Then Ford bought it, got the reliability and similar issues addressed, and has made it a much better vehicle as a result--but it took several years to get to that point. Proving that it could be done without significantly harming the cherished good points of the vehicle, which people generally bought it for. Also proving that high rankings in the JDPower surveys might not be the only criteria for the perceived "goodness" and desireability of particular vehicle products, but a combination of certain factors (all considered together) that leads to sales successes. Buyer behavior, like economics, has many answers and orientations that result in us parting with our money for products. An equation full of many variables that are highly variable themselves, depending on many aspects of the purchase and ownership experience and their interaction with buyer demographic issues. Enjoy! NTX5467

For some reason, the posted link does not work. Seems like the LA Times also has some registration requirements too (which are "free", typically). Although some "response" from GM might be desired and appropriate in this case, I rather doubt it will really make any difference, with all due respect. Everybody is entitled to their own orientations on things, yet some media people CAN tend to push their own private agendas on some things in the articles they write. On the Editoral pages, there are usually in-house and syndicated columnists that write on various subjects with varied orientations and outlooks on life. Key thing is to remember that what is written is THEIR orientation and not necessarily that of the newspaper it is printed in. Diversity of orientation can be good, plus each columnist has a particular niche target market they "play" to -- which helps sell newspapers and radio shows. Unfortunately, many readers/listeners take what these people say as "gospel" and take it to heart without considering that there might be other sides to the story or that their favorite columnist/radio host might be pushing a hidden or personal agenda of their own. Same thing with cable television news reporting/commentary. Some of these columnists and radio hosts can deliberately be a little "extreme" sometimes, on purpose, to get people to think about things which can affect them, but some people, as mentioned, take it to heart and don't question anything--which can be unfortunate. In the case of the LA Times' automotive reviews, which have been an issue in prior times, not everybody looks at cars/vehicles the same way we might. Some might desire just basic transportation, reliably and dependably, whereas others demand the latest whiz-bang trendy gimmicks too, as still others don't care for all of the added complications of owning a "sophisticated" vehicle but want to be comfortable and stylish and safe (by their or their peer group's orientations). Unfortunately, you have to read a particular automotive reviewer's reviews for a good while to determine if they are similar to each of our's orientations of if the reviewer is "a little too radical" for our tastes, or as one news network puts it . . . "Fair and Balanced" . . . or a a local billboard ad for a local DFW-area sports commentator noted "Fair and Biased". By observation, a "good" automotive reviewer will put themselves in the mind-set of the basic target market consumer for a particular vehicle as they use and drive the vehicle during their evaluation. In the sales world, it's called "empathy", I believe, where you put yourself in the "customer's shoes" as you address their purchase needs. By the same token, a reviewer might state that they would not buy a particular vehicle as it is not to their orientations, but when the target market is considered, it's really good. In other words, there are many things to "talk about" rather than to arbitrarily state "I don't like THESE cars!" and go on to detail why (as if to justify their position). Some of these "bashings" might even relate to the individual's latent insecurity issues? End result, a reader reads one review from a noted publication, from somebody that's supposed to be "fair and knowledgeable" in their assessments (by association with the noted publication), and believes (rightfully so) that it's accurate. If it's a "bashing", they mark that vehicle off of their list--whether it deserves to be marked off or not and go on down the road. If it's a favorable review, they go look at the vehicle and make their own decision--just as we are prone to normally do. It's normal to want to publically respond to some of these reviewers' comments, but it might not solve anything--just depends upon if the manufacturer takes on a "victim mentality" in their response rather than possibly purchasing ad space to quote other reviewers' comments on the same vehicle, which were favorable. Advertising "warfare"??? Covertly discrediting the particular publication's review in the process by showing a general "favorable" orientation to it by other national reviewers. I'm not registered with the LA Times website, so I'm making these comments based on knowledge of the basic situation between GM and the publication in prior times. Plus other times that GM has not been too happy with reviews in other automotive publications. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

The "well seals" you reference were on the later Rochester QuadraJet 4-bbl carburetor, which did not come out until the later 1960s (long after your vehicle was built) and would not fit your vehicle without a complete carb/intake manifold change. In the 1957 time frame, the 4 barrel Rochester carb was called "Quadra Jet", but had barrells that were basically the same size, primary (front) and secondary (rear). The later 1960s Rochester "QuadraJet" is a completely different carb, with 1.38" primary throttel bores and 2.25" secondary throttle bores, plus many other visual differences in the castings, fuel line hookups, and throttle linkage. It is the LATER "spread bore" 4bbl that has the well seals that can leak overnight or extended non-use periods. They can be sealed with appropriate epoxy sealers when they are disassembled, cleaned, and "kitted", with good results, but that is not the carb you should have on your vehicle. As mentioned, due to the baseplate bolt pattern AND throttle bore sizes, it requires a matching manifold or some sort of aftermarket adapter to make it work on manifolds it was not designed for. In order to determine just WHERE the fuel smell is coming from, you might get the car started, run it a good while to get everything nice and warm, then park it as you normally do. Then, the next day and after that, have somebody inspect the vehicle for external fuel leaks AND pull the engine oil dipstick out and smell it for gas smells too. Even visually look for puddled fuel on the intake manifold. Might even pull a few spark plugs to check for raw fuel too. These issues are hard to diagnose "long distance" and will require some on-site investigation to fully determine where the real issues might be. Also, check the automatic choke for correct operation. If the thermostatic spring is "too tight" (from age and not specifically for mis-adjustment), it can make the vehicle harder to start and keep running when "cold". Once everything warms up and the possible "soot" gets cleaned off of the spark plug, everything can act normal again. As the choke butterfly restricts air through the carb in a cold start/cold engine situation, if it's too tight, it can result in raw fuel literally being sucked out of the float bowl and into the engine, making it hard to start and even "flood" it. This is why the automatic choke needs to be observed for correct operation in such conditions. Many of these things are not really hard to do, or used to be back when there were more people who knew about working on carburetors rather than electronic fuel injection, but there are some things that will need to be looked at locally by people who know what they are doing and what they are looking at. I suspect there should be no real need to start replacing parts (which is the way many people like to do things these days!) rather than fixing and possibly finessing the adjustment of existing working parts. Again, by somebody that knows what they are looking at and has expertise in what they are doing. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

There might be some leads in the Buick Performance Group website too, which has a lot of Skylark "following" for those years. Some of their members/associates have done some "runs" of particular restoration parts over the past few years. It might be necessary to be cognizant of the differences in the Skylark, Skylark 350, and Skylark Custom models when you're looking for parts. Might not be many differences other than in grille-related items on the front end, but each variation had some small or not-so-small differences in other parts of the car's trim and ornamentation. For example, the Skylark Custom used a different grille and possibly related "suround" items than the base Skylark or GS. There might be greater availability of the base Skylark grilles (as they were used on the GS too) than for the Custom--by observation. Or you could convert it to the seemingly more plentiful '71-'72 front end and bumper arrangement (which some others have done from time to time). Also, be prepared to have a good line of credit available (or cash reserves) as the prices might be higher (for the grille and headlight bezels) than you might suspect--by observation. A few years ago, I saw an allegedly NOS '70 Skylark Custom grille go for $500.00 or so and then later, a NOS '71 grille (with box) at the Kokomo BCA Nationals for $700.00--neither of which had the surround chrome trim included, just the base grille. You seem to have the normal vendor choices covered, but don't expect them to have what you need for a Buick (unless it might be a GS or "musclecar") as they might for a similar Chevelle. This is where the salvage yard refs above and the BPG might come in handy. BUT, when you're done, it'll be worth it. I suspect you might also need a new a/c condensor. I suspect the aftermarket sources would be good for that, but they might not be "judging perfect" either. While the a/c system is "open", you might adjust the POA valve for R-134a refrigerant (as detailed in several posts in the www.ackits.com website--I believe that's the correct name) by turning the internal adjustment/calibration screw to later achieve a low side pressure of 26psi rather than 29.5 for R-12, which results in the high/low side pressure differentials being comparable to what they were with R-12 and typically identical cooling performance when the evap pressure is adjusted. You'll have to get the old oil out of the system, but it's probably time for a new accum/drier anyway. It's all there in the forums, which are dated about 2004, use "POA Valve" in the search window and it should bring them up. No need to purchase the "POA Eliminator" contraption, which some vendors mistakenly call a "POA Valve". POA valves were listed in service literature as being "non-adjustable", but when you get it removed from the vehicle, there IS a calibration adjustment either on the front or rear of the valve's internal guts. Afterall, if it's built and needs to perform within a specified range of values, there will always have to be some sort of adjustment capabilities for initial caliabrations--especially for a somewhat complicated assembly as a POA valve rather than the later model pressure cycling switches (which are "throw-away" items). Ford used POA valves too, but put in their tech lit about how to build a tester to test and calibrate them for correct functioning. Main thing with R-134a is to get the old oil out of everywhere it might be, with currently approved flushing procedures or outright replacement of components and leaky hoses and adding new "compatible" oil into the system. No special conversion refrigerants, no "replacement" contraptions for the POA valve, just a simple oil change and POA valve adjustment is all that's needed to obtain R-12 style cooling--according the forums, which all makes sense to me. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Adam, what about the possibility of some regular GS350 Skylarks? Seems like I saw something of that nature somewhere in print? Kind of a "budget" GS of sorts, but overshadowed by the normal GS455s? I would concur that anything with a "Stage One" badge would have to be a 455, though. This might be another situation of owner mis-information. Possibly started out with a 455 that was later replaced with a 350 (salvage yard sourced)? Possibly the owner thinks it might sell better if it was touted as a GS350 Stage One rather than a GS455 Stage One (due to fuel costs??) as they tend to look the same? Lots of different orientations that could only be, respectfully, addressed by checking the VIN and other vehicle stamp/production codes. Key words being "respectfully" and "non-judgmentally", in that process. Sometimes, having a good poker face can help too--just like at a swap meet. Just some thoughts and observations, NTX5467

One thing Ford did was to "listen" to the Mustang enthusiasts in the prior upgrade of the car (not to the current model, but from the 3rd model back), which resulted in the Return of the Pony Corral to the grille, plus the signature body side contours. At that time, Mustang sales had flattened and they (from what I read in a local Mustang club newsletter, which was also "connected" to the Ford Dallas Zone office at the time) did solicit input. Recall, too, the Ford Probe was supposed to be a Mustang until the Mustang loyalists made their feelings known to Ford--definitely enough to get their attention and rebadge the car as "Probe" (a name used on some Ford experimental vehicles) and start a yearly continual upgrade of the existing Mustang platform/powertrain of that time (which included the "famous" 5.0L Mustang following. Then, when you put a designer in place whose teenage years (car-wise) were focused on the first generations of Mustang, great designs can happen. As with other aspects of life, you can "direct" and "demand" certain styling orientations to happen, but when the lead designer has a passion for what he/she is doing, great synergies can happen. Just going out to look at cars in a warehouse or on the show field can be a great help, but if you didn't basically "grow up" during the time those particular vehicles were built OR were deeply tapped into a knowledge base on the particular vehicles, there are some things that might be missed in trying to decipher the "chemistry" that made them great. Although WE might be a great core group to be "mined" for desires, orientations, ideas on/for newer Buick vehicles, people that have a desire to see the Great Marque of Buick grow and prosper into the future, [[New advertising tag line . . . "BUICK . . . a Great Marque of General Motors" . . . or "BUICK, One of General Motors' 'Great Marques'"]] some might perceive we might be the wrong group of people to be talking to. Problem is that people who are not Buick enthusiasts might have a highly skewed orientation toward the brand--which can be used in shaping the advertising, but not particularly the sheet metal. On the other hand, we might be a little "too traditional" in our tastes and orientations for many existing non-Buick owners or people we might desire to make Buick an aspirational brand for. Getting Buick BACK to "the styling division" of General Motors orientation seems to have already started somewhat, but not quite to the boldness of former times just yet. I believe that INVICTA would be a great name for a flashy-styled new Buick sedan! Hopefully RWD too!! Adding some trim to the side of the car that would allude to the "sweepspear" of particular generations (55-56, possibly) of Buicks (maybe even with two-tone paint!) and standard whitewall tires would be neat! Of course, with VentiPorts (functional even??). "Invicta" and "Electra" have theatrical sounds to them, even when talking about them in normal tones of voice. You just don't get that "quality" when talking about "cold alphanumeric" model designations! "Excitement" in the name, followed by "excitement" in the sheet metal and engineering, can lead to "excitement" in the current and potential customer ranks, which can ultimately lead to greater sales and market segment impact. "Excitement" about the brand that can continue to be passed from generation to generation. If "they" do it right, Buick (as the first car-building business entity of what later became "General Motors") can help expand the rennaissance of General Motors as it's already started. GM has some great models on the ground now, but there need (and probably will be) more to come out of the pipeline in the future. Using BCA members to comprise a "core" focus group would be great, but there will have to be an orientation of also adapting Buick to future generations of new customers. As always, I'm willing as many others in here are. Sometimes, the best information sources are right under your nose, but operatives would rather spend great amounts of money to bring in "experts" from outside to offer advise and guidance in particular areas. Perhaps that is one thing that's wrong with "modern" business models????!!!! There was an article in "Business 2.0" magazine that mentioned that of the corporations that had outsourced their customer service call centers, approx 80% had brought them back "in-house". It seems that any cost savings in that outsorcing had been overshadowed by loss of business profits. Having "contractors" do such corporate-sensitive (customer support) work was heralded as "great", until poor scores on the services (as compared to previously) started impacting the bottom line profits of these same companies (some of which had been known for great customer support). It was noted that contractors do not (or might not) have the same "buy-in" in making sure their client's customers were as "satisfied" as they could be OR taking the extra measures (which might not be completely available to them) as a genuine company employee might. If a contractor might happen to make somebody mad, so what, they still had a job. Not to say that all "outsourced contractor" employees are "poor", but when the company you represent is also the company name on the top of your paycheck, it CAN put a little different orientation into how things happen. Internal employees can also have different lines of communication to get a caller where they might need to be rather than saying "Please call back . . . so that we can better address your concern". Now, if corporate email inquiries could be channeled to desired areas for a response rather than getting the "corporate 'Thank you' reply". Typically, when the parent corporation actively controls all "labor operations" in their control, there is a much better handle on quality than when you might hand-off such operations to somebody else. Kind of like a dealership not having a brake lathe machine to machine brake rotors . . . if they are sent out to a local auto supply that does not fully finish the job (non-directional swirl pattern to OEM production specs), or does a poor job, and there are customer complaints about that brake job, you either make sure of the "subcontractor" or you bring the process in-house and can make sure it's done right (to OEM-manufacturer specs) BEFORE customers presume that there are other things the dealership "Can't do right" and take car sales and service business elsewhere. By observation, I have talked to some oursourced contractor customer support people that were greatly interested in addressing my concern, but when you hung up the phone, then called back, there was no way to talk to the same person again (as I inquired about such, so that I would not have to repeat the previous transaction to the next call center operative, which might be in another part of the world)--even if it was on my "dime". Perhaps, if it had been an "in-house" situation, I could have been given an extension number or agent number to request? But THAT's a whole 'nuther business model to be concerned with. Just some thoughts and comments . . . Enjoy! NTX5467

I didn't get too good of a look at the interior last weekend (too many people crowding around up close), but like many other pictures of GM's new cars, does look better in person than in the pictures. It does look good in the displayed color too, as it better defines the "lines" and "shapes" of the body better than a lighter color might. Probably a darker metallic color of some sort would work well, or a "pearl coat" paint in a darker color--something to highlight the body shapes with the existing chrome/satin nickel trim for accents. As they said last week . . . "In your Buick showrooms in 14 months" Enjoy! NTX5467

If you had been using Dexron II, it was replaced with Dexron III a good many years ago. According to GM, Dexron III is fully backward compatible to the first HydraMatic, just as Dexron II was. Dexron II was upgraded to Dexron IIe when the first electronic valve body/computer controlled GM automatics came out. In my Turbo 350, it seemed to shift a little quicker and crisper, for example. Dexron IIe was upgraded to Dexron III a year or so later. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

1-Current daily driver -- 1977 Camaro Type LT 5.7L V-8 (enhanced) Buicks are awaiting attention . . . 2-Daily miles -- approx 50 miles (to work, home, work, home) daily cummulative yearly miles approx 25K 3-Current average mpg is approx 17mpg needs to be better If I need to go on a trip, I'll usually get a new Buick from the National Car Rental Emerald Aisle Executive Selection at DFW Airport. 4-Owned a hybrid? No 5 & 6-Purchase plans for a hybrid? None I understand that Toyota's current available (on sale in the USA) technology has been in the home market since the 1997 model year. No battery replacements under warranty, they claim (8 yr warranty). Hybrids of that nature might make sense for the way some owners might drive--and where they drive--but in the driving pattern I do OR are the vehicles of a size I could use for an everyday car to "do everything" in (which the Camaro does not always fit either). I feel that diesel/electric hybrids might be a better long term investment, personally, rather than gasoline. 7-I would not be against owning a diesel car or truck either. I found a neat 2006 MB E-class diesel that gets 37mpg highway and ran approx 140mph in a durability test at a test track near Laredo, TX. Turbo 3.2L inline six, 201 hp, 369 lbs/ft torque, for what it's worth. Window sticker of approx $54K and guaranteed resale value in the future--about $1K less money than a comparable gas model. I would not mind a VW diesel either, or even a Jeep Liberty diesel. Euro diesel techonolgy has far eclipsed what we had over here in the early 1980s! Even some of the Olds 5.7L diesels were much better than generally suspected--I couldn't blow one up in the company pickups I had back then. Granted, power was not great, but once I learned how to "drive" it, it worked pretty well. (Note: "drive" in this case means how much throttle and when, plus using manual upshifts on the freeway on ramps to upshift just before it bumped the governor in the diesel pump. Once I learned those things, I got good performance from it, even with a 2.76 rear axle ratio). IF I was in a strictly "downtown" environment, I'd probably opt for a Ford Escape hybrid rather than a Honda or Toyota (even if Ford licenses the technology from Toyota). But that's not where I live at the present time, or possibly in the future either. Whatever I do has to be cost effective. There's still a good bit of use left in the internal combustion gasoline engines that we use every day. Also, whatever I buy will have to be something that I can work on, if need be. "Paid for" and "less expensive to insure with full coverages" are considerations also! The trusty Camaro now has 655k miles on it, so loooonnngggg term durability and replacement parts are also important. Short term and immediate future "finances" dictate that I make better use of what I have than to purchase a new vehicle, but I can afford a weekend rental when I need one. I concur that the results you might get here would be different than another particular "population", so you might preface your results with that notation. Enjoy! NTX5467

Paul, thanks for the advisory on the delayed delivery of the April "Bugle". I got my copy of the April "Bugle" today, approx one week behind when it had arrived in earlier times. I noticed the new font on the mailing labels. Condition when received was excellent. Another great issue by Pete! I think we have hit upon an editor that HAS seemed to mobilize the membership into contributing articles, pictures, and information of their own accord! Other than just being a club magazine with some information in it, I now consider it to be a REFERENCE grade publication with quality worthy of being on any Buick enthusiast's coffee table. A fantastic combination that needs to continue . . . and that we can all be proud of! Enjoy! Willis Bell 20811

There was "plain" white, "diamond" white, and what I'll call the "Lucerne Special White". Diamond White looked neat, but didn't really look "waxed" when it was. A little dull as it aged. Disappeared for a few years to return after Lexus started using it, I seem to recall. Ground-up diamond dust, or something that looked that way, was supposed to be in it. An optional color in many years. "Lucerne Special White" (at a MSRP of $995.00) does look better than the Diamond White, but what pearl-like color it'll shift to can vary from green-gold to gold depending upon which viewing angle and lighting source (i.e., outside or inside). Kind of looks neat, but just not too predictable. The blue-green color they had in the later 1990s was more predictable in its color shift, I think. Not sure of how hard it would be to color match in later years, either. In the end, the "plain" white can be a good winner if you can find it. All "whites" are not the same, though. Some are more "blue-white" while others have more cream or gray in them. Yet they are all "white" and can be waxed and polished to a high degree of shine--which is good. I don't know that plain white was offered in all of the years that the Diamond white was offered on the same cars. Not sure if a plain white is available on the Lucerne, either. In those respects, if you want "white" you might have to take what you can find. I think some of the deeper crimson reds on those cars look nice too, but that's just a personal pref. "1" vote for Plain White Just some thougths, NTX5467

There possibly is a "park" switch in the motor itself. The instrument panel switch obviously is commanding (that's a later model terminology) the motor to turn off, just as it can change the speed, but if the park switch has failed, the motor doesn't know when to park the wiper arms and stop. Might need to check a Buick service manual for that year to verify my suspicions and/or find the real culprit. Just some thoughts, NTX5467