NTX5467

Whether it was a Buick V-8 or a Pontiac V-8 depended upon what "tonnage" the vehicle was. As in 1/2 ton, 3/4 ton, or heavier. Automatics were HydraMatics. I suspect the "granny" New Process 4-speed would have been strong enough for the V-8s, as it was (as I understand) the same transmission behind all of the GMC 6-cylinders from 228-302. I've seen some '58 GMC 1500 "fancy" pickups at some of the local cruises over the years, with a HydraMatic, but didn't see under the hood. Might have to go check them out. Seems like all of the light truck engines were in the 7.5-8.0 to 1 compression ratio range back then. Maybe just a little higher than the export engines, but lower than the car engines. Enjoy! NTX5467

Prior to Cisneros, it was Fred Hughes Buick. I think it ended during the third generation of Fred Hughes' descendents. They also had BMW in the mix too, later on. NTX5467

Well, as your Prius appears to have "active arming" capabilities -- as the Corvette has had for several years not -- then you'd better NOT lose whatever it is that "transponds" with the vehicle. At least, on the Corvette and XLR there is a secret button to push to get into the car. I do find it interesting at how much technology might be in the "content" of the Prius Dave has. I am also aware that many of these vehicles were built at a "factory cost loss" just to be able to sell them at a reasonably competitive price to get people to buy them. I wonder how many would have been sold if they did not have all of the "upscale" equipment included in them????? If they'd been equipped like a base Corolla, rather than as Dave mentions, would they have sold as many???? On the same orientation, if GM had sold something of that nature and lost money on each one they built (shades of EV1!!??), do you reckon the Wall Street People would not have been harping on them to "STOP ITT!!!"???? BTW, the current Corolla has a EPA highway rating of 38mpg, with the new Nissan Versa supposedly being 43mpg. But they still won't tow much behind them either (towing, just as a/c on the Prius, will decrease fuel economy too). Now, as there have been Dodge and GM full size pickups that can run electrical tools from their electrical systems (for a few years now, in fleet/military configuration), does the Prius have such capabilities (with an appropriate intermediate transformer to step-down the 200V system)???? Where's Tim The Toolman??? That voltage would really make a Dremel tool sing! Enjoy! NTX5467

You might need to remove the cables and check to see if one of the ends hasn't rounded off where it might index with the transmission mechanism. Which could also ultimately lead to one of the "jacks" it runs being locked up, hard to make work, or broken. That general format of power seat architecture was used into at least the later 1970s, so there might (repeat "might") be the possibility that you might salvage some items from a later model GM vehicle to fix yours. Key thing would be the width the seat tracks are apart from each other, I suspect, with respect to cable length. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Seems like there used to be a Mopar Performance kit to add a drain plug to a torque converter . . . which included not only the plug itself, but also a counterbalance weight to go on the opposite side of the front of the converter. Might also be a B&M kit too. Key thing would be to make sure that any metal shavings from the drilling operations did not get into the converter. If you are going to "flush" the system, perhaps one of the best would be to have a competent shop do a transmission flush (without their fancy chemicals involved, but only fresh ATF) on the vehicle. This way, you'd get the cooler lines (if applicable) and ALL of the fluid changed. Many car dealers do this, but finding one with the best machine could be the trick, plus a hookup adapter that would work with your vehicle. Enjoy! NTX5467

As noted, the amount and application of undercoating (on most any vehicle that had it from the factory) can be highly variable (within assembly line "build manual" guidelines) and also dependent upon the operator doing the spraying (plus related issues thereof, with all due respect). It was sprayed from a pressure pot gun system, typically, so exact duplication of that particular spray pattern might be hard to do with an aerosol can. There are also different compositions of spray undercoat in the cans too, depending upon the manufacturer--some are more heavy-bodied than others, which can result in the more correct build thickness of the factory application. If you desire to pursue the undercoat application, you might check with the musclecar restoration (GM and otherwise) vendors as somebody has advertised "factory correct" undercoat for several years now, but you might need a spray gun to apply it correctly. You might find an advertisment in the back of one of the musclecar-oriented magazines. Some of those restorers are highly educated on what was correct and how to recreate those things in factory-correct restorations as their judging intensity has greatly increased over the past decades. I do concur that whatever you might put under there might not look "right", so having a reasonably heavy-bodied undercoat in particular areas might be the best (as in the fuel tank, as mentioned), even if it comes from a spray can. I also concur that 3M would be a good source for such. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Whenever I was investigating body mounts for my '68 LeSabre, I found the casting numbers of the sides of the rubber items and discovered that they also fit '68 Chevrolet Impala-type cars. Even had a Chevrolet-style (3-series, 7 digit) part number on them too! I later verified that in a Chevy parts book for that year. This is one situation where the casting number on the part generally is the actual part number from GM. Uppers and lowers, which can be replaced individually, but better in pairs. Sometimes, they are the same (upper and lower), but not always as they generally fit inside of each other (in the center where the bolt goes through them). It's also highly possible that they can be "location specific" too, but some might be used in multiple locations, so knowing that can be important upon purchase and also installation. From what I've seen of other "body mount kits" from aftermarket vendors for other GM vehicles, the rubber items might be of generally good quality, but the hardware (bolts and washers, etc.) is straight from the hardware store with none of the special anti-corrosion coatings that the factory parts generally have. One member of another car club I'm in demonstrated how you could apply "gun blue" to the hardware store bolts and make them look like they have the factory oxide coating on them. OR you might get the bolt specs and see if you can get some Grade 8 oxide coated bolts from a bolt vendor (or possibly match something up in the GM Standard Parts catalog). The thing about the bolts can be, by observation, is that they can corrode and "go away" where you can't see them (i.e., inside the thru-bolt area of the bushing assembly), so they'll probably need to be replaced anyway and normal Grade 5 hardware store items are better than nothing. When you replace the body mounts, you'll probably be surprised at how quiet the car is with the new rubber mounts. Sometimes, more surprising than you might expect, making it seem like "a new car" again. Which might motivate you to do other replacements that you might not have otherwise considered. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Welcome! Better handling will come NOT specifically from lowering the vehicle via the springs (which will ALSO reduce wheel travel and the ability to handle rough roads where wheel travel is necessary to prevent "bottoming out" of the suspension), but from different struts, tires, and sway bars. Struts from KONI or KYB, for example, can enhance ride AND handling (firming things up when they need to be firmed up). Compliment that with some higher performance tires (don't need anything of a shorter aspect ratio that you currently have, just something with more of a handling orientation and specified sidewall stiffeners near the bead in the sidewall construction) and some aftermarket sway bars (or mixing and matching some production sway bars (some of the factory bars are hollow tubing rather than a steel bar) for flatter cornering and better transient response. Typically, when the factory had an upgrade suspension, they included Goodyear Eagle GT tires back then and used the same struts and maybe stiffe springs, rather than the softer standard tires. My theory on this is that as the softer tires would tend to filter road input before it got to the struts, the valving in the struts stayed in the "smooth" orientation longer times before stiffening up. With the stiffer sidewall Eagle GTs, more of the road input was transferred to the struts which then went into their "stiffer" valving mode much sooner--I know they did ride firmer and this is the only real explanation I can come up with as to "why" it happened that way. I also know that tires are a key part of that equation as I put a set of Pirelli P77s on a 2nd gen Camaro I have. I already has KONIs on it and liked the way they rode and handled. With the Pirellis and their different rubber compounds, I never could get the KONIs adjusted as firmly as they had been with other tires. They rode well and handled well, but the shock adjustments always bugged me. When they wore out, I put some BFG Radial T/As on it and the gutsy feel returned. I haven't strayed from that combination since then on that car. Regarding sway bars, during that time frame your vehicle was being designed, GM started to use tubular sway bars (you can tell as they look like a flattened tube where they attach to the lower control arm/strut ont he suspension) rather than the more traditional solid steel bar style of sway bar. There was some dialogue about it being easier to tune, but I suspect it had to do with production costs more than anything else--all things being equal. As always, bigger is better and solid should be better than tubular (in my orientation of things). Adding some polyurethane support bushings where the bars are secured to the body/subframe can help make the bars more responsive too, but not as much as if there were rubber bushings that could be replaced where the bars attach to the suspension at the outer ends of the bar. Still, taking deflection out of that equation can sharpen the handling and make the bar "act" bigger. I'm not sure what is available for that chassis, but you might check with Performance Suspension Technology (PST) on their website (bars and bushings). Key thing with sway bar sizes is to not get too big of a bar on the rear, in comparison to the front. For example, Corvettes don't need a larger rear bar as the weight distribution is already pretty much 50/50, but a 2nd Gen Camaro or Firebird handled best (from the factory, as in the WS6 Firebird circa 1980), with a 1.25/.875 front/rear sway bar sizing, with the fronts having the polyurethane link bolt grommets rather than the factory rubber ones (which makes the front bar "act" 20% larger, in comparison to if it had the normal rubber grommets). The other thing to sharpen steering response is to alter the tire pressure bias, front to rear. The front of the car carries more weight, generally, than the rear of the car (unloaded), so the front tires need proportionately more air pressure (ultimate weight carrying capacity) to compensate for the greater part of the vehicle weight they support. From my experiences, this just takes about 2-4 psi more in the front than the rear. This can help take some of the "understeer" out of the chassis, such that the car feels more balanced in handling/turning situations. For example, if the factory recommended pressure is 30psi f/r (ambient "cold" rather than "driven"), then use that base to add the air to the front tires. If total vehicular load results in needing to put the rear tires at their 35psi (typical) max cold inflation pressure, then don't exceed that value in the front tires. It would also be advisable to get the front and rear end alignment set to factory specs . . . AND maintained if the vehicle is lowered any amount with springs. Personally, I've seen people "shadetree" lower their vehicles by cutting springs and shortening suspension travel bumpers. It might look cool and such, but with the reduced ride height also comes reduced wheel travel (as mentioned). It's much better to "ride over" bumps and dips and railroad tracks than to be jarred by them as the suspension bottoms out OR you have to creep over them to keep from being jarred as the suspension would bottom out if you drove over them at more normal speeds. In having to slow down so much for these road conditions, you might be protecting your car's body structure (transferring "flex" to places not designed to deal with it), BUT you are also making your vehicle a target for drivers that might not understand that you need to creep across/through those conditions as they don't have to, which could lead to your vehicle (or the vehicle behind theirs) not knowing what was going on ahead and resultantly collide with the vehicle in front of it, which could then be propelled into your vehicle. This is a side issue that many owners of "bouncing" cars don't consider, but as the driver behind one of them at a railroad track crossing on a 4 lane surface street, who looked up to see the BowTie emblem of a '72 Chevy pickup in my rear view mirror (!!!) of the new LaCrosse CXS I was driving that night, THAT IS A BIG ISSUE TO ME! I saw the hoppin' Honda coupe in front of me and hit the brakes a few times as I slowed down, but the vehicle behind me was slower to slow down than I was. In short, suspensions should be firm but compliant, with wheel "compression" travel in the suspension for the best handling/ride combination. I know that many magazine buildups for handling always lower the ride height for a lower center of gravity, which might be important if you're in a 1940s vehicle more than in a 1990s (and later) vehicle, or a 1/2 ton pickup rather than a passenger car, but dropping it about 1" will not make that much real world difference unless you're going to live on a skid pad and worry about pulling .02G more after your modifications and $$$$$ spent than before. Wheel size, from the factory, for that platform was either 16x6.5 or 16x7. Unless you got to a larger tire rim diameter, you'll possibly have clearance issues with the strut/spring items in the front. Probably not a whole lot of room for wider tires in the rear either. But some of the newer factory 17s or 18s might work too. The thing with short sidewall tires, although they might look neat and ride stiffer, is that with no sidewall to absorb impacts from road conditions, when you might hit a chuckhole (or worse) or something of that nature, it makes the wheel rim much more vulnerable. I've seen some of these issues on the Olds Alero/Pontiac Grand Am cars, which had a shorter sidewall tire (of a generally normal size) on them. With a bent wheel/ruined tire issue on a city street, whether or not you can get them to pay for the damage to your vehicle is highly debatable. Much better to not set yourself up for those things than have to contend with it later! I know, the current Lucerne and Devilles can come with 16", 17", and 18" wheels as factory equipment, which can later be, possibly, a nice upgrade for your vehicle (if they are not too wide). Also notice how tall the sidewall of the tire is compared to some you might see with aftermarket wheels and tires. THAT sidewall height is what protects the wheel from impact damage. The 22s that come on the new Escalades also have sufficient sidewall height to generally protect the wheels too,with the 20s that were optional on the prior models having even taller sidewalls on them. The other side of the situation is that while you can definitely improve the handling of your vehicle, it's not going to ever be in the class with some of the newer roadsters or autocross-prepped cars. Physical weight, size, and chassis design are things than can work against the Riv, unfortunately, BUT you can improve it to where it's better than stock and not significantly harm the existing "cruise" orientation of the vehicle. Also remember that when you start to change struts, there are TWO ways to do this. One way, which many repair shops can do, is to cut the strut apart and replace just the inner cartride with the replacement item. If there's any oil inside of the main strut housing, it needs to stay there (it's a heat sink transfer facilitator, just as the silicone grease is under the old HEI module on HEI distributors) or be replenished if any is lost. This way, the initial strut cartridge is less expensive, but the additional labor to do the cut and replace is more. The other way it to replace the entire strut assembly as an assembly. No additional labor time required over the basic remove/replace operation. A front/rear alignment will need to be done in addition to the strut changes too. Also, if you decide to attempt this yourself (or with your associates), you'll need the holding tool so that you can disassemble the strut assembly off of the car--not something to do if you don't have it, period. Plus a spring compressor (!!) so that you can safely handle the spring. Also, when you take the struts off of the vehicle, you might also desire (highly recommended) to replace the upper strut mounts at the same time (you're "there" anyway), as they can deteriorate and make noise as they age (which is usually noticed after any strut changes). By the time you get struts, mounts, alignments, and labor, I suspect it would be on the higher side toward $1000.00. Sway bars, wheels, tires would be even more money. But it's your money to spend as you desire on your car. Proceed at your own risk and enjoy whenever possible. Just some thoughts (mixed with observations and orientations of mine), NTX5467

Sounds great! NTX5467

Last year, I finally paid some attention to the Rendezvous and other GM minivans (even the newer versions in 2005). Whereas the Chevrolet was pretty basic (as is the Chevrolet "value brand" heritage), the Rendezvous CXL I checked out was equal in interior appointments to a prior Park Avenue. Considering that the former Park Avenue was priced as it was, the equally-as-nice Rendezvous CXL might be a little overpriced, but in the "niceness" perspective and that it comes with the uplevel 3.6L DOHC V-6, the price can be considered reasonable. To me, the Rendezvous would be more comfortable on a road trip than the other similar vehicles. Mainly because the 2nd row seats were more comfortable and the interior was nicer (and probably quieter too). I didn't notice those 2nd row seats being as narrow as they were on the Buick, but they were very apparent on the Chevrolet. In short, Buick luxury and appointments in a smaller package with greater utility than a regular sedan. I'd much rather have a Rendezvous CXL than any similar Lexus. Regarding depreciation, many factors can affect that and residual value (for leases). Public demand is one . . . from a somewhat fickle public that might not investigate to see if their preconceived notions (or what others have told them) about a particular vehicle is correct. Yet, like other luxury vehicles that might depreciate sooner than others, this makes the used Rendezvous a much better value on the used car market. Which will also mean it can get into the driveways of 2nd owners that can now drive a used Buick for the same price as a new (similar market segment) Chevrolet, while the much-revered Lexus is priced out of their used vehicle budget. Kind of a double-edged sword! Just some thoughts, NTX5467

On the hvac system of the beloved Prius . . . it would make sense that in a vehicle run by electricity (basically) that the fan speed would be variable in order to hopefully maximize utilization of the electrical power in the vehicle. But does the Prius have dual controls on the hvac system as many GM cars have had for years? If they need to vary the hvac fan speed to conserve electrical power, is there enough excess to run another set of electical actuators to accomodate the driver/passenger air flow/heat/cool operations? What about a "kickin'" sound system, subwoofers and all? Hmmmmm, if you build a box for the subwoofer and then find space for the amp, how much would the extra weight affect real world fuel economy, not to mention the additional electrical drain and the need for the "fossil fuel" motor to run to keep up with demand? In reality, the variable hvac blower motor speed should be a simple software issue to make happen. Maybe a few other sensors too. Not a really major issue to me, though. It might be a serendipitous situation for a new Prius owner, but not enough to make me want to rush out and buy one just for this feature, with all due respect. Let's see now, if the Prius has the "luxury item" of automatic variable hvac fan speed, does it also have . . . . power windows, power seat, power antenna, power sunroof, electronic variable shock absorber/strut damping, electric power steering, and power door locks . . . as so many Lincolns, Cadillacs, and some Chevrolets have??? Just curious . . . I'm really glad you like your car, Dave. I hope it continues to perform to your expectations. Enjoy! NTX5467

Both copies arrived in today's (03-17-2006) mail. About one week later than they used to arrive in 2005 (usually prior to the 2nd Saturday of the month, which is how it had been for years). Another great magazine, Pete! Willis Bell 20811

The wires will be color coded. If you can get a Buick factory wiring schematic, it should detail which color wire goes to which terminal on the connector. I suspect they would all have the same color code--just a hunch. Be also aware that normal THM400s did use an electric kickdown mechanism, which also generates a 1-wire plug in the transmission case. One of the wires in your two wire situation might be for that function too. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

I concur with Mark's orientation . . . just make sure there are no air (or vacuum leaks). I, personally, like to coat both sides of the intake gaskets I put on engines with a thin coat of black silicone sealant. Plus, if the gasket has a "beaded" or raised surface on one side, I'll make sure the back side of the gasket (with the indented "bead") has the indented bead filled with the same silicone sealant. This basically makes a normal gasket into a "Printoseal"-type gasket (which is typically a smooth piece of gasket material with a robot-applied bead of sealer applied to it on both sides) for enhanced sealing capabilities. The bead will be compressed a certain amount during assembly, so the sealer smoothed into the bead on the back side of the gasket should enhance the seal and longevity thereof. It's worked well for me. I've found that the application of silicone sealer to both sides of the gasket (even metal valley pans) will both aid sealing and make cleanup of the mating surfaces easier to do (when the gasket might need to be changed again, if ever). Just have to make sure there is no squish-over into the port areas subject to fuel vapors! It also works well on cork/composite valve cover gaskets, carb base gaskets, etc. Before you get too inclined to get the manifold surface "dressed" at the machine shop, remember that while this can result in some really nice gasket surfaces, it will also "narrow" the casting as material has been removed to get to the surface you will then have. This is important as it will result in the manifold sitting lower in the "vee" between the cylinder heads, which can compromise the manifold/head port relationship a certain degree--one reason that for every .001" you mill the cylinder head gasket-to-block surface, you are supposed to remove an incremental amount for the intake manifold gasket flanges to compensate. Therefore, knocking down any high spots -- gently -- and then using a good sealer on the intake gasket prior to assembly can be the best way to do this deal. Enjoy! NTX5467

Regarding the poor floor distribution of "heater" air flow, it sounds unusual. I do know that the final deflector on the bottom of the hvac case is different on Suburban/Tahoes than it is on normal pickups. It tends to put more air to the back than to the sides. Yet they both bolt to the same case. Perhaps that might fix that issue? The 4x4 actuator and switch mechanism did have some reliability issues, but there were many part number changes for "delayed engagement" issues (addressed in TSBs by GM). What they ended up using was a completely different actuator and wiring harness. It was not a really complicated system to understand, but there were some problems. Technicians that knew about the system, generally knew what to look for to fix, by observation. Sometimes, as with the '91 and prior Suburbans and other vehicles at or toward the end of that platform's "life cycle", there can be tooling issues with body fit . . . even some assembly issues too. As we sold lots of them, our trim guys saw lots of them and knew those idiosyncracies front and back . . . plus how to address fixing them. They were mechanically bulletproof, but the body assembly did have some issues, with some being better than others. The same might have been true of your '99 Suburban. Our family did subscribe to CU back in the middle 1960s. We didn't have a vehicle that fit the criteria for their vehicle surveys at that time, but from the knowledge I'd gained (at that time) about what cars had what problems (from hanging around filling stations and such), plus our own experiences, I wondered --even then--why their surveys generally scored much worse than what I'd actually seen happen. After we stopped subscribing to CU and a "buying service" (that had a book of "dealer prices" for some of the same products that CU tested), I still looked at CU for their take on certain vehicles. It seems that in the middle 1990s, they tended to start taking notice that American brands were becoming more competitive with "import" brands. It also seemed that they were taking a more realistic approach to how the vehicles were really being used, rather than some arbitrary ideas of some editor somewhere. But, by this time, they'd already been snakebit by several lawsuits about their comments and determinations of several vehicles, so taking a more balance approach was necessary (in their vehicle testing and articles). I still will look to see what they have in the various issues on the newsstand, just for informational purposes, but I seldom purchase them anymore. I think their current road tests are pretty representative of how a "normal buyer" might use the vehicle. Their handling assesments are pretty close to what my real world experiences have been too. Similar with fuel economy. Only problem might be that as "plain vanilla" as their auto testing seems to have become, its value is generally diminished by the way the convey their findings. In a recent issue, they indicate how a smaller child might not be able to see out of a particular vehicle's rear seat due to the kick-up of the lower window line of the rear doors. A valid point, but didn't really affect their overall rating of the vehicle. Still, something that many might also overlook. Once you start looking, there are many current vehicles styled like that! I recall one rating category of the CU auto surveys. It was called "Body Integrity". "Integrity" usually means "strength", so how was this to be interpreted? I rather doubt that many CU respondents went out and crashed their vehicles to determine how much "integrity" their vehicle had, but something they could rate is "squeeks and rattles"--all of which do generally have some warranty coverage on a new vehicle. OR a motivated owner can fix many of those with a good set of sockets and/or wrenches and maybe some appropriate lubricant. And, in the case of '60s-'80s era Chrysler UniBody cars, if they had factory undercoat (in a general option package), they had less rattles than similar vehicles without that option. Again, how the dealer spec'd the vehicle could make an ultimate difference in how well their product might do in a CU survey--by observation. Two items CU hasn't . . . or didn't back then . . . rate (as Popular Science and Popular Mechanix did) was "Would you buy a ______ again?" and "How Was Your Dealer's Service?" Generally, as strong as CU tried to keep their survey results above reproach, in a purely statistical manner, that could well have been their downfall on that issue. Statistics will also indicate just how small of a random sample is needed to predict a "total population" projection--which is much smaller than you might suspect. I also recall some which had "Insufficient Data" in particular model year columns on some vehicles. In more recent times . . . just where that random sample was located and if a particular area (and related citizen demographic) were targeted for the survey, then those survey results WOULD be somewhat skewed and while "random" in that general population, would NOT be completely representative of a different targeted "random" sample "general population". As CU has readers everywhere, in possibly different concentrations in different areas, it might be said that their "random sample" of subscribers might not reflect accurate projections for a random sample of the entire USA. There can be accurate comments about CU's "target random sample" being representative of a "general USA random sample" or not being representative of a "general USA random sample". Perhaps CU can shed some light on that issue with stats on their subscribers (age, location, occupation, etc.) which can then be compared to the total USA general population? Might also include educational background, political orientations (liberal, conservative, centrist, etc.), and ethnicity too? I don't know that I'd use their stats as "gospel" for any reason, but just as a general guide on things, still looking for other input. I know that some will put more faith in their surveys than I might, though, and appreciate that fact. I am also aware of the many issues, of recent times, that have resulted in CU being in litigation over their testing results and related comments--which can somewhat taint their testing procedures to me. Yet to be an "informed consumer", you need to find as much information as you can and CU can be ONE of those information sources. To me, the real issue with CU's automotive service surveys is not the size of the (random) sample, but the way they present the survey's sections per se. Perhaps their titles can be fine tuned to better reflect what they are looking for in responses (i.e., "squeeks and rattles" rather than "body integrity"). When you ask for a person's interpretation of "quality feel", for example, it can be highly variable due to the particular "point of reference" of the respondent, just as many of the categories in the CU automotive surveys can be "point of reference" judgments rather than the "cold, hard, facts" that CU generally purports their survey results to be. Just some thoughts and observations . . . NTX5467

Ox, thanks for that link! Highly informative! When we subscribed to CU in the middle to late 1960s, I took special note of the car tests and compared them to those in other car magazines of the time. The tests were generally less involved and indicated slower acceleration times. On their "handling course", they had one "test bump" that was a test to see if the suspension bottomed out or the underbody hit something. Quite simplistic, but no reference to the "specs" of the "test bump". Still, as it was all consistent, some general conclusions might be reached. In many cases, their reports did not always conicide with the "other" media road tests. They always went out and bought their cars from dealerships, unlike other press operatives that got theirs from the corporate press fleets. In the later 1960s, they started reporting on "defects" as delivered. They took a pretty finely-drawn definition of "defect" . . . as anything that was "not right". No mention of design defects or if they could be addressed with a minor repositioning adjustment -- two quite different things, yet they were "defects" as far as CU was concerned. A mis-aimed headlight was a "defect" for example, just as windnoise would be (to them). I also noted that, for example, in a 6 cylinder version of a particular vehicle, the reliability chart was full of high marks, but the similar V-8 engine model was worse or much worse than average. Same car, same plant, same workers, same designers/engineers, different equipment mix. Perhaps the dealers loaded up the V-8s with lots of options (which would increase the failure rate and lower the customer satisfaction of the vehicle) whereas the 6 cylinder models were all pretty basic in equipment (less things to go wrong). By observation, when a customer notices one little thing going wrong, many others just seem to follow, but if they find nothing, they stop looking. Therefore, to take the CU reliability ratings "as presented" without looking for side issues (which most people would not do) can result in incorrect conclusions being reached. If you use the CU reliability reports for general trend analysis, you can see how a later year model of a particular vehicle (after the platform model change) can have better ratings than that first year of production. ALSO, in this orientation, by the time that first-model year of vehicle would be on the used car lot, all of the noted problems should have been fixed under warranty--usually with the same parts that got the higher ratings for the later versions of that vehicle. CU's main selling point of their surveys is their "no advertising" orientation, which is commendable, but it doesn't mean they will (or can afford) employ the same calibre of automotive testers that a major level car magazine would. As noted, even these impartial company employees will have their own individual biases that can find their way into the test results as they report on the various tactile touch/feel orientations of each vehicle. OR that they will have access to, say, the Chrysler Proving Grounds as some of the MI area car magazine people do, for their testing venues. Or that they'll have the same calibre of test equipment either. What I DO look at in the CU tests are their general comments and test numbers. As "scientific" as they try to make these tests, they will not always duplicate the real-world environment/driving style that a (consumer/subscriber) motorist in another part of the country/world might experience. Another observation of CU enthusiasts, with all due respect, is that they can use the CU "findings" only when they are to their advantage. For example, one guy at work uses the CU comments on the Chevy Cobalt to prove that GM is really in deep trouble . . . but has failed to mention that the current Chevy Malibu and Chevy Impala are "recommended buy" items. One test rating variation I like is where the cars are all rated with scores in each area of the vehicle under consideration. That way, I can see numbers on where the particular testing group liked or disliked a particular vehicle. I can also cross-ref them to my own orientations and concerns. For example, a vehicle they rated #3 might score higher in the area I was more concerned with than a vehicle that scored worse in my main criteria area and enough better in another area to give it a #2 or better ranking in the group. I'd rather have a vehicle that scored well in chassis dynamics and powertrain than have one that scored higher in style (this year) and lower in powertrain and fuel economy, for example. Perhaps one vehicle scored lower in chassis dynamics due to a sub-optimal tire choice or lack of the upgrade suspension (which another vehicle might have had)?? We all have our own perceptual filters through which we process information. CU is in that same boat too. I feel they do very well on appliances and such, but their automotive testing does not seem to reach that same degree of consistency. Of course, I would be remiss to not mention the various vehicular "tests" that CU has performed that have resulted in additional scrutiny and litigation. One was the "unstable" Chrysler K-cars, but when their test procedure was finally revealed (which they firmly defended as being acceptable), it was obvious that their test was flawed (in a real-world sort of orientation). And then there were the SUV "tipover" issues that began with the Suzuki Samari. How that really transpired finally came out in the court hearings. Not good for CU! Similar for another vehicle of that nature, too, as I recall. To their credit, CU does provide a decent service for the average consumer--one that might not be "an informed consumer" per se, with all due respect. But for a more involved description of vehicular tests, it's necessary to read "the biased" tests of the major car magazines. One magazine I can think of tends to look at things through "Honda-colored" glasses, for example. The real issue seems to be when CU's automotive items are reported "as gospel". Their tests and surveys might have merit, just not quite as much as many would like to believe. As previously mentioned, many have used CU's tests/recommendations to reinforce that they (reportedly) made a good purchase decision . . . in the absence of any other valid information. In general, a good survey will not lead the respondent into a negative response, nor a positive response either, by the way the question is worded. Defining the various rating levels is needed too, but seldom offered, just as what constitutes a "major failure" or "normal maintenance" (as the Nissan vs. Chrysler item in the link notes). Seems like Popular Science (or Popular Mechanics) magazine used to have the best vehicle articles from their surveys and consumer comments--they made a lot of sense as to why people bought that particular vehicle and how they had been pleased/displeased with it, plus fuel economy in various driving modes and problem areas. From my perspective, those were results you could "take to the bank". As always, a better consumer is one that looks at all (or a lot of) the available information on their potential purchase before plunking down their money for a product. The more input, the better, as the more input you have, the more that personal biases for/against a product will be averaged out. Trend analysis works better too. Just some thoughts and observations, NTX5467

That earlier delay wiper set-up is much removed from the more current versions, as in how they operate AND specific motors and such. I do know that on the '98+ C/K trucks, when they don't "park" at the designated location (as in just a tad above horizontal) when turned off, it's the delay module circuit board that needs to be replaced. On these particular vehicles, the board is what the wiring harness plugs into and commands the motor to do what it does, so if the motor runs when it should, but has some different quirk, changing the board will cure about 98% of all problems. With this in mind, I can't think what you might have "disturbed" when changing the washer pump . . . unless the pump is specific to delay wiper motors and you might not have the correct pump. Just a thought. Seems like there is a "park" switch that commands the "park function" when the wipers are turned "off", which is on the main circuit board as a separate item, which can -- or used to be -- able to replaced separately or usually comes on a new circuit board. There might be another switch that handles the "delay/intermittent" park function too. Key thing might be if after the wiper blades pause (in the intermittent operation), they move downward before moving upward, which might indicate some synchronization issues might exist in the electronics and not the mechanicals. In those earlier times, the body electric diagnosis was in the Chassis Body Manual rather than the normal Chassis Manual. I can't determine why changing the washer pump caused the situation described, unless it might be the wrong pump for the delay wiper motor. I just checked the RockAuto.com website and the pumps are different and some note "will not have delay feature in replacement pump", so you might check it out and see if the part number pump you installed might be listed in there. I like that website for shopping and informational purposes, plus I've got good service when I have used them for things I could not get locally. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Might not be something on the prior painted surface itself, but something airborne in the area too. Seems like there is a paint additive that can remove some of this sensitivity, but this would be for "mixed" paint rather than "pre-mix" paint. You'll need to determine the source of the "airborne contamination" before proceeding further, even if you clean the part to "bare metal" and start over with the primer and such. It could be something already on the coated surface, but IF it's from airborne sources, the fisheyes will start all over again with the newly-cleaned part when any topcoat finishes are applied to it. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

You might be able to adapt one of the hand vac pump/brake bleeder kit mechanisms to get a good seal on the power steering pump's reservoir and pull a mild vacuum on the system. That could, hopefully, get most of the air bubbles out of the system. There is a power steering gearbox rebuilder that's in the GMRestoration Parts program. Don't recall the name, but seems like they have coverage on most everything back then. Another possibility is that you might need to tweak the adjustments on the gear itself. Sometimes, if the adjustment is not tight enough (to specs), it can cause some groans and moans and give it a funny feel. Hopefully, you did use the "approved" fluid? Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Thanks for the comments, Guy. I have a soon-to-be-retired machine shop operative that's also a long-time hot rodder (since the later '50s). Over the years, he's seen lots of things go on at the race track and at the machine shop he owned. One of his favorite comments had to do with the "Trick of the Week", as usually printed in some recent hot rod magazine. Purported to work great and be easy to do, so everybody gets away from their tried-and-true chassis (or engine) setup to try this new magic bullet . . . which doesn't work nearly as well for them as it did the magazine writers. Another of his favorite comments has to do with what happens at the track. The scenario: A racer is trying to get his chassis (or engine) set up dialed in, but is having problems in the process. A friendly "pit advisor" comes up and offers his advice to do a certain change and it'll work like a champ . . . and then walks off. He "sounds" like he knows what's going on, so the change is made, which usually results in even more substandard performance. Then here comes another . . . and another . . . and another, each with their own cheering section and credibility, it seems. Chassis setup in a drag car seems to be one of the largest "mysteries" of drag racing--to a large number of racers. Many theories of operation for each style/type of rear suspension, it seems--and that's just for one particular car and set of chassis components. Sometimes, when things are acting right and working good, the feel that is desired is not there for the driver . . . if only they'd look at their time slips and fine tune rather than "change". In one case, a customer wanted him to get his rear suspension on a Chevy Monza straightened out so it'd work better with the more powerful engine they'd just built for it. My friend got the car at his shadetree shop and went over it and made sure that nothing was biasing something that should not be. When done, the suspension was "free" and would work. Yet it squated too much for the owner's taste, so here came the pit advisors and they readjusted things so that it "hopped" down the track once again, rather than driving smoothly and compliantly--what my friend noted was "the 2x4 suspension setup" that he'd just spent time getting rid of had returned. You can draw many parallels between my friend's observations and current business events. As more time can be spent pointing fingers, which is seemingly easy to do, than fixing things, sometimes it's better to draw a line in the sand and say "From this day forward, we will learn from our past mistakes and move forward toward a better tomorrow for the company and its employees". No finger pointing, just positive actions. The problem comes when so many legacy concerns are in play too. Getting them under control is just as important as moving forward, yet they can have a diminishing role if the business grows as desired. Sometimes, there are "hot button subjects" that some operatives always key upon. They are important to them, but might not be nearly as important to others in the corporation, yet everybody has to keep hearing about them--like it or not. For former GM Board Member, Mr. Smale, it seemed to be brand management as implemented by Proctor&Gamble. Now we have health care costs and other things that particular operatives have for their own hot button subjects. Talking about these things doesn't fix anything, yet an improving business and growth can make them less significant in the total scope of things. So we end up with the "90 Day Wonders" sort of fixes. Everybody likes to see results, but it seems that with the focus on "here and now" orientations, the sight of the future is forgotten as being necessary to consider and plan for. Kind of like a day-to-day bookkeeper orientation, with all due respect. Keeping the bills paid tomorrow is highly important, but if you can structure the repayment so that you make more progress with the liabilities and also build reserves at the same time (which can be one heck of a balancing act!), having some reserves for future business expansion can happen. Much of the media reports have dealt with the "here and now" orientation for GM's alleged problem areas, yet there are also lots of neat things in the works now, happening NOW too, to be ready for the future vehicle markets' needs and consumers' desires. Some were originally supposed to be out for 2007, but the more recent "ills" have delayed them to about 2009-2010 . . . from the signals I've seen. In the mean time, GM's doing a pretty dang credible job with what they ARE doing (which was all approved about 3 years ago to be happening now). But there is still more to do in the short term to support what was planned in the long term a few years ago--and on the ground now. Even if the Chrysler Group might have many popular models that sprang from the LX family of vehicles (just as they had in the early 1990s with the then-new Ram truck and the new LH cars), they are also running up against having to find a place to build additional new versions of the LX chassis for future products. Ford and GM have some good coverages in many market segments, but need to expand in others. Hopefully . . . in the future the American car companies can get back to having competitive products in all product segment areas. At least the trend is currently in that direction! Leveraging their traditional and current strengths (which they actually have!) to produce new products for the North American market that are designed and conceived HERE rather than elsewhere, plus the uniquely American muscle car-style and sporty vehicles that evoke memories of past glories and future joys of ownership. Have a great week, everybody! NTX5467

One thing that I often wonder about is just how many more times can cost reductions be "requested" (or you can insert your own word there) and how many more times can operations be "reinvented" and/or streamlined before there is nothing left to work with? The other problem is that a strictly automotive OEM's operations can tend to mirror the health of the industry they build parts for, which means "unstable", generally. The less stability and profits, the more inclined they would be to find work in other areas where they can provide the product they can deliver at a price that is realized to allow them to make appropriate profits and prosper. I suspect that "outsourcing" to overseas vendors is something of a band-aid fix as they'll probably be approached on these same issues, eventually. When and IF they balk, with lots of other local vehicle manuacturers they can sell to, THEN where will things be? It's always easier to "cut" things than "build" them, yet "cuts" generally appear on the profit/loss statements before the investments that "build" can get fully operational (due to lead time issues). Sometimes, I wonder how anybody in MI has a job, with all of the job cuts from GM and others. I suspect that one thing that might be "cut" is those in the Jobs Bank that do not participate in the community service as other Jobs Bank workers do, with all due respect. Yet there's not one simple answer to these complex questions . . . lots of interacting issues . . . and orientations that must be considered. HOPEFULLY, an equitable solution can be reached. In some respects, having Delphi to be a separate entity from GM was a seemingly good move. That way, Delphi could work for whomever they could sell things to, plus expand R&D for future global vehicle platforms. These would be things that if they were still a part of GM that might be frowned upon, in some way "cavorting with the enemy". I'm not sure if Visteon achieved the same measure of success, globally, as Delphi has? It should also be noted that only Delphi-North America has been said to be "unprofitable" as Delphi-Global has been reported to be doing quite well. It's become a sticky mess, it seems. Just some thougths, NTX5467

Thanks for that information, Roberta! ------------ Manufacturer = GM "A product for every purse" Make = Vehicle division = "brand"Model = The particular vehicle in the division's product assortment ("portfolio" sounds classy and might be accurate, but sounds a little "uppity" to me) Focus (not the Ford model) = The brand first and the models therein second, plus what each brand stands for at what price point (i.e., value, luxury, performance). If a customer comes in looking for one model of the brand's offerings, yet finds they can't get what they want or at a price they can afford, perhaps they will find another model in that Brand that will fit their needs and desires. In a multiple-brand group, there will always seem to be "weaker" and "stronger" segments, but rather than bemoaning that fact, raise the weaker segments to the level of the stronger ones and make them all better from their prior reference points. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Actually, Dave, the first and most of the first gen of Chrysler LH cars listed for approx $31K. Only option was a sunroof. The same automatic a/c setup was ALSO available on the less expensive Chrysler Concordes and Dodge Intrepids too--vehicles that probably could have been dealt down to the lower $20K range. Actually, that extra clock (which REALLY works! and was STANDARD equipment) of the 2nd gen LH cars, as the Chrysler 300M, is really quite handy. Even Infinity has a similar setup! Might seem redundant (as I was suspect of the duplication when I first saw it) until you find that you can easily glance and see the time rather than looking down at the radio display. No need to take your eyes from the general plane of the roadway and surrounding areas. I noted that Dave didn't say anything about "intimidation" on the roadways, from larger vehicles or possibly getting caught between two semis on a three-lanes-same direction road, going uphill. Not to mention those soccer parents on the way to practice that starts in 5 minutes, in a 4wd Excursion diesel. One aspect of a narrow vehicle as Dave's is that two of them can probably drive side by side in a single lane of traffic. THAT could ease congestion, possibly, just as everybody driving motorcycles. Being that TX also has some 70mph and higher legal speed limits, what does the fuel economy drop to at those speeds with the a/c running full blast in 90 degree weather, Dave? Just curious. Also, how does it handle driving 70mph with a cross wind hitting on the edge of one of the front fenders, constantly, at say 40mph? Might be a little extreme, but it has happened that way down here. I'll concur, Dave's hybrid will have to be highly aerodynamic in order to better use its limited power. I'd like to see one ascend Ranger Hill on I-20, east of Ranger, TX. The ride "down the hill" might really be interesting too! Might get the batteries charged realllll good too (via regenerative braking)!!! I saw a Toyota Highlander Hybrid today, a new one. I didn't get a chance to look at the price on THAT one. Nor the EPA mileage ratings. In some ways, Dave's hybrid is similar to the Chrysler AirFlow. Some really great advances in technology, comparitively aerodynamic, but a somewhat controversial styling situation. Hybrids are still a "work in progress" in many respects as their various technologies continue to evolve. They can be viable alternatives for many people who currently don't own one, but there are also other buyers that should probably stay away from them (for various reasons). Be that as it may. I still highly question their resale value as new technology replaces old, IF resale value enters into the picture. I suspect there will always be a market for them to others that might currently own them or those that are fully aware of the possible various idiosyncracies of the vehicle and its components. In the same orientation as taking a confirmed GM owner and putting them in a competing brand of vehicle (with its different feels and reactivities to input and "sounds"). Suddenly, the "other" vehicle can become the "Worst vehicle on the road!" when compared to their GM vehicle. Just some thoughts . . . NTX5467

The website at SMACKBOMB.com has some automotive fonts, but not Buick. There might be some links at the top of the webpage that might lead to where you desire to go. I also Googled and found www.signspecialists.com. In looking for "BUICK", it listed about 10 pages of various fonts and how they looked in "BUICK". I found a few that looked real close to the actual, but not an exact match. They've got lots of car decals and decals you can design yourself online. Might be an option? In the world of fonts, there are many font website and each designer tends to have his own website and "own" fonts for sale. I was totally surprised when I started looking for a specific font! Much less that people were still designing new ones!! In the world of automotive fonts, they can have subtle changes from decade to decade or new model to new model, yet appear to be reasonably "the same". Enjoy! NTX5467

I presume you will be using all of the necessary later model electronics that came with and work with the newer engine? You'll probably need some sort of signal generator so the computer will know what speed the vehicle is running, but I seem to recall that your '81 should have a "speedometer buffer" on the backside of the speedometer head for this purpose, but the signals might not interface with your later model computer system. Seems like the later computer systems also had switches to tell the computer what gear had been selected by the driver, on the transmission linkage belcrank area of the transmission, and probably included the neutral safety switch in them. Things might physically fit well, but it'll be the electronics interface that will make the "second part of the story", I suspect. In a Pontiac enthusiast magazine several years ago, a guy in Louisiana took a Pontiac A6000 and put a 210 horsepower Chevy 5.L V-8 in it, using the T125 transaxle. The article noted that a drive axle shop built him some fwd drive axles with HD joints in them. It also noted that a certain transmission shop built the T125 transaxle and went in and enlarged all of the fluid feed lines in the valve body and gear train to increase the fluid flow volume and better handle the power that transaxle was not designed to really handle (when it was designed back when). I'm not sure if there's any "racing off-road" stand-alone computer systems for your engine, which would allow you to not have to worry so much about the correct interface per se. Or possibly ElectroMotive could design something to do the ignition and fuel injection in the earlier chassis (similar to what it would be in a street rod/street machine application). Just some thoughts . . . NTX5467