NTX5467

If you can find a copy of the "Standard Catalog of Buick", it might be in there. The Somerset Regal was the two-door companion to the 4-door Regal in those years. Came with 4 cylinders or a V-6. Pretty classy cars! "Limited" would be the additional trim level, but I don't think it was a separate model as such, but the VIN decode at the dealership would determine that. In many cases back then, the "Limited" nameplate would be the only one visible, other than Buick. Made it necessary to determine WHICH "Limited" it was, unlike the 1958 models most of the customers back then might have remembered. Enjoy! NTX5467

I don't think GM or any other OEM North American manufacturer ever spec'd flex hose over moulded hose. Many times, the flex hose is the "replacement" hose when the correct factory-type moulded hoses might have not been available locally, or were discontinued. Think of the flow issues of the coolant flowing over the interior of those flex hoses rather than the factory moulded hoses. Not to mention possible aeration. In some applications, GM did use some straight hose sections with bent tubing in between then. Seems like some middle 1960s light duty truck engines were that way from the factory. Enjoy! NTX5467

The 3800 might "fit", but the other GM fwd cars that did use the 3.8 and 4.1 Buick V-6s had longer front end sheet metal to compensate for their wider (90 degree) bank angle rather than the Chevy's much narrower 60 degree bank angle. In any event, if the engine was not spec'd for the particular car from the factory, it would be "modified"--although it would still be a Buick Family engine. I believe the 400 Point Judging rules address that issue. I saw a Pontiac A6000 (in one of the Pontiac enthusiast magazines) that somebody had put a Chevy 5.7L TBI pickup truck engine into. It fit and with many internal mods, the Turbo 125 transaxle was still in it. Had some beefier axles built for it too. Be that as it may . . . Also, I'm in CST, Mr. Earl. You're in EST? That would explain the noted time issues. Y'all enjoy! Willis

Crin, thanks for the kind comments. I fully understand your family issues (and time devoted to such) and appreciate your orientations in that area. By observation (which I mean just as that!), many BCA members tend to mirror the "cars of their youth" in what they perceive are "collectible" cars. This is perfectly normal, regardless of or age--period--but I also suspect that many of us might tend to overlay OUR perceptions of what vehicles are "desireable" to own onto what we suspect that younger people might term "desireable". Hence, the more common comments that "Buick doesn't have any newer vehicles a young person might desire". To those BCA people, my response is to look around at places like RegalGS.org and the other many GM-related forums, group websites, and personal websites where the later model fwd Buicks are showcased as "cherished vehicles" by their younger owners. It IS all out there! By observaton, with no perceived Buick group to be a part of, many of these younger Buick owners established their own CyberPresence and clubs to exchange information and stay in contact with each other. Sure, they probably could have found the BCA in their searches, but probably did not perceive that they "fit in" very well, so like the Riviers, GS, and Reatta enthusiasts (originally), they went off and did their own thing--if they could not show their newer model (newer than 12 years old) pride and joy in a BCA national show, why bother? In the later 1970s, it was not uncommon for customers of '73+ model Chevy full size pickups to get later model grilles and other things from the salvage yard or dealership to make their vehicles look "better" or "newer". MANY used car lots bought the '78+ model side mouldings to make the '77 models (the only year that had the mustard gold color paint insert on the side mouldings) look like newer models. The fact that it was mentioned that later model grills and such have been swapped into the '81 Skylark (due to cosmetic preference, just as with the pickup truck side mouldings) fits right into that situation. One salvage yard "rebuilder" regularly bought "Custom-10" models at auction and then added all of the Silverado exterior trim (and maybe some interior trim too) as he got them ready to resale. Many of the issues (re: modified vehicles) might not have existed in the earlier times of the BCA. The as stated "end of the assembly line" orientation is a good one, especially with natural attrition of earlier model Buicks as time progresses into the future. So, there's a reason for keeping that orientation in place, but there's also the "Buick family" aspect of the hobby too--an ever expanding situation. Some might consider "modern" vehicles as "used cars" or "not collectible", but are those reasons to keep a BUICK off of the BCA 400 Point Show field? Or Archival or Driven Class too? In other words, it doesn't have to be an "old Buick" or a (generally perceived) "collectible Buick" to still be a "cherished Buick" of our youth (or other part of our prior lives). It's highly possible that a good, driving, running car could suddenly become a "parts car" if some desired part can't be found (locally, typically) to fix or repair it. Wreck damage that can't be repaired is one reason, for example. Yet being in the BCA also can tap into a supply chain that might not be otherwise available via other sources. But that situation also opens the door to "doing something different" rather than just "pure stock". Let it go to "rustville" or the crusher rather than revive it as a Buick (not completely stock) to drive another day? BOTH valid orientations which BOTH have merit! No need to get back into that discussion AGAIN, either! I also need to state that I really appreciate older vehicles that still have their "family" engine in them. As in having a Buick engine where a Buick engine would have originally been from the factory, but a newer Buick engine if desired. It sends the signal to me that the owner really cared about maintaining the Buick family orientation in "fixing up" the vehicle. Of course, in the later vehicles with "corporate" non-Buick-heritage engines, things can get a little "different". I wish Leno had put a Buick 455 engine in his Roadmaster, but I also fully understand why the GM Crate 502 went into it also--his money, his preference, his vehicle. In addition to being in every car magazine around, it was ALSO featured in a GM dealer publication done by GM. The Roberts Rules situation is a valid one too. Even if a discussion might get "off track" or become non-productive, somebody has to get things back under control . . . somehow. Key thing is to get something accomplished and be productive. How that's done can be a variable situation in each unique situation--even if it might be a more informal "work session" rather than a regular chapter meeting. Until the BCA adds the word "Antique" into its official (key word, "official") title, I'll consider it a GENERAL and "all encompassing" Buick Club of America where there's room for ANY BUICK vehicle (and their owners) to be welcome at meetings AND at the National Meets' judged events. If Buick built it, it's "A Part of the Family" and needs to have some place in our national meets. One side issue is dealing with "dealer installed" non-GM or non-Buick equipment. Yet these issues are much easier to track with the newer Service Parts Identification (SPID) labels on the newer GM products. Kind of mirrors the Data Plate that Chrysler has used for decades, or the "Build Sheets" too, but in a much more accessible situation (than the build sheets, which are still printed and hidden in the vehicles). Still, if it's a Buick produced vehicle, it needs to have some place to participate in our BCA events (with the corresponding BCA member bringing it). Yep, Mike and Willie, another "2:00AM+ post" . . . In the end, though, every body needs to be comfortable with whatever "group" they might be a part of to pursue their automotive hobby pursuits. If it's a BCA chapter and the BCA per se, that's great! As time progresses, more options present themselves--options which do not sometimes include the BCA. Perhaps when the general age demographics for the total BCA might decrease, it might be synergistic and lead to a further increase in younger members. "Younger members" being defined as "non-grand children of existing BCA members" in this case, with all due respect. I suspect that more 30-something members would be a start. If WE are going to pass on the huge legacy of information and knowledge that many in the BCA have, there has to be somebody to pass it on to. Exchanging information among ourselves is great, but WE are not the only Buick enthusiasts in the situation either. As we age, keeping the information to ourselves is somewhat counterproductive and somewhat detrimental to the hobby. One reason that it's great that this BCA website is open to non-BCA, but potential BCA, members! Enjoy! (to your particular, individual tolerance level and where ever you might desire--legally) Willis Bell 20811

I'd be willing to bet that the wheels are stamped "14x6" rather than being 14x7s. Typically, Camaros were the only GM wheels that were 14x7. The correct measurement is "between the rims" rather than "total side to side" rim width (which can account for the added width you might have found when measuring "flange to flange, outside dimension"). This is provided that the wheels are OEM factory wheels and not a repro variation thereof, size wise. If you want the "factory correct" look, then possibly P215/75R-14 would work, even available in whitewalls. That should equate to the older G78-14 size pretty well. The only "Billboard White Letter" tires were in the G60-15 size (most usually found on Skylark GS models). Just depends on preference and available funding. If you put the wider and heavier 70 or 60-series tires where something less wide is now, it might also point up the condition of your shocks and suspension--more weight bouncing around to control. Plus, unless you have sway bars under the car that are larger than normal, the body lean in the turns (during spirited driving) could negate the full tread area being on the ground due to wheel lean. Hence, the wider tires might look better but actual performance might not be any better than the skinnier G78-14 equivalent tires. Enjoy! NTX5467

Without talking about the pension fund employer matches or health care "$0" co-pays I've read about recently, back then the pattern for the current union contracts was done, regarding the "downtime pay", it was a means to protect the union workers as GM downsized their operations to better get a handle on the massive overcapacity they seemed to have back then. When was that? Middle '80s, basically. Although it seemed incredible that any company would agree to paying people not to work, or about 3/4 of their normal wages when work stopped for whatever reason. GM had some good solid and stable products in a majority of market segments back then and was making money, so that was the trade-off they negotiated to take. Seems like the original contracts did not include dental expenses at that time, but that was added the next time around? Auto executives have traditionally been paid very well, even back when Walter P. Chrysler ran Buick and the investment bankers "owned" GM. Cash, stock options, incentives, bonuses or whatever, that's just the way that industry has done things (in the USA). GM typically has not been able to have the leverage of sorts that Chrysler has been able to have in union negotiations. If Chrysler went under, so would the union jobs, but it's not that way with GM or Ford. The pessimist would say "That glass is half full, decrease consumption to make it last". The optimist would say "Let's get some more water and use it wisely". So which orientation is best if the water "evaporates"??? That out of the way . . . I went to the Dallas International New Car Show Saturday night. I had heard the Lucerne would be there and it was. Not to mention the 2006 Impala and Monte Carlo SS, Malibu SS, Nomad concept, Saturn Sky, Pontiac Solstice, Chevy HHR, Cadillac DTS, and others. The Lucerne definitely looks better "in person" than any picture I've seen of it. Same with the 2006 Impala and the HHR. The Solstice looks a little plain compared to the Saturn Sky. AND . . . the 2006 Monte Carlo has a new instrument panel and controls, similar in configuration to the last gen Aurora, but less expensively done. On all of these vehicles, fit and finish were better than on the prior models they have or will replace. These are some of the tangible things that Lutz has affected and made happen. The Solstice might have received the majority of the press on that new platform, but the Sky will probably sell better and the HHR was an unexpected surprise. The "kin" Chevy Nomad concept looked pretty production ready too, but it was stressed by the presenter . . . "It's only a concept . . ." From what I've seen and observed, there are many segements where GM has very strong products, or will have soon. And they are not all trucks either! For many years in prior decades, GM "drove" the marketplace with innovations and upgrades. Now, many claim GM is not competitive as it doesn't have "6-speed" automatics or whatever. What they might not realize is that if you have a good enough engine, then you don't HAVE to have a 6-speed automatic to compensate for poor power and torque output (too small of an engine in too much vehicle). And to me, the best CVT would be something similar to a modern version of DynaFlow or TurboGlide--I'd trust something like that much farther than a steel cable and pulleys. Sometimes, you have to let some of these trends settle out before you dedicate millions of dollars to their design and production. In the mean time, the critics claim GM's "behind the times . . ." When 4 valve/cylinder DOHC engines became "in vogue", it was as a way to somewhat inexpensively get more power from a naturally aspirated engine. At a time when cold start emissions standards sent turbochargers "packing". Now, years later, with higher priced cars that will justify heated oxy sensors and more advanced electronics, turbos are staging a comeback. Unlike superchargers, a turbo can be a "heat sink" and prevent the cat converters from getting fired off soon enough in cold start emissions. Therefore, mass market DOHC 4 valve/cyl motors proliferated into the lower ranks of cardom out of necessity. Point being that GM currently has some highly credible "hardware" now, but it's not particularly what Toyota or Nissan might have. Therefore, what GM has is "not right for the times", according to some. And that's where their "justification" stops. "Justification" will not address real world performance OR how much worse fuel economy those high tech engines might get compared to GM's existing engines. There are other examples too . . . In one respect, GM's its own worst enemy. Ineffective advertising is one aspect too. Seems like somebody mentioned that the best advertising is free advertising. "Adverse" print articles would be in that mix too, just as "word of mouth" from satisfied customers would be too. Which one has GM been getting the most of lately? Enjoy! NTX5467

I completely understand the scenario that you describe. You have enough issues at work and then you step in to a "fun" place and think "I want to be a part of THIS??". I also understand that your reflex action can happen too. "Time to go do something else . . ." Yet, sometimes, "discussions" on decisions can get to be what I call "way tooo circular . . . " for a final decision to result in the short term. I can also perceive why you decided to leave rather than confront them, as an officer, on their apparent lack of progress. Sometimes, we all try to be nice and not make waves where sometimes waves need to be made. By the same token, sometimes people get involved in some action (bickering with no apparent result) and tend to get so lost or caught up in that activity that they lose sight of just how it might look to others. At one of our meetings several years ago, a member came in late (with his two somewhat unruly children). He was frazzled due to driving for about an hour and the way the kids were acting. He got up and started a tirade about something that didn't go quite to suit him. Something he brought up before the whole membership in attendance AND about three pair of new visitors. This was something that he could have brought up to the club officers rather than the whole group, but he apparently wanted the "exposure". End result, we NEVER saw those visitors ever again. He was irate before he walked into the door and didn't really care about anything other than making his "speech". If it had been just our members, it would have been "better", but it was not just us and he did not respect or understand how visitors present might or should change things. Similar situation to what you saw going on and what those visitors saw at our meeting that day--"Who want's to be a part of THAT???". The difference is that now that you've put this out in the open, you now have a discussion point with the former chapter group. Perhaps an exit interview with them could be arranged? Perhaps as they thought enough of you to elect you to an office in the chapter, you might still have enough credibility with them to have a professional-type discussion with the current officers. OR perhaps some of them might see your post and contact YOU first? Y'all are the ones closest to the situation (as mentioned) and also the best ones to possibly effect a positive outcome. Take care and DO stay involved with the BCA. Willis Bell 20811 Director, North Texas Chapter BCA

I know there are many popular "notions" floating around about just "WHAT Lutz might have done", but from my vantage point on the dealership side of things, he's worked MASSIVE amounts of changes--changes that are not or could not be really known unless you knew about them or watched them happen. Also, the "roadmap" of Mr. Lutz's orientations (and what he did at Chrysler to help that company become the darling of the industry in the 1990s) is in his book "GUTS". Just delete the stuff about Lutz searching for the "perfect martini" in places that don't even know what it is, but could not follow his instructions on how to build one. Then, for good measure, find a copy of the DeLorean book circa 1981 on his time at General Motors. Then look at how things played out in the 1992 "palace coup" when the engineers were forced out "of office" to be replaced by the financial people (who delayed product and features, setting up a chain of events that has tended to lead to where GM is today, possibly including the failed "brand management" orientation that just did NOT work, yet it stayed around for far too long afterward. You probably did not see the carefully worded responses that many GM upper managers made regarding the "new direction" that many areas of GM would be taking (after Lutz came on board). These were seasoned GM people and not contract labor, per se, or people that would be controlled by GM Board operatives. In other words, long term employees that had come up through the ranks. Yet they were very respectful of the prior management in noting that although they would be doing things differently, the "prior way" was not noted to be "bad". Watching the industry comments during Lutz's first three years, it was obvious that he had a blank check and was using it to reconfigure General Motors for the coming years. Yet, there is only so much he could do in a particular timeframe. Many projects were already too far along for him to have a lot of impact on and there were also many areas that were in very good shape, yet not trumpeted as such, in the organization. In other words, it was a mix of some very good aspects and some aspects (relating to product) that needed more work. You've heard about the Pontiac Solstice? Starting 04-15-05, about Noon, the first orders for that car could be input into the GM order system. That's one thing Lutz has made work, just as he made sure the Dodge Viper remained true to the original plan (rather than becoming diluted by "marketing people" that wanted a full range of Viper models, as the book mentions). True, there should have also been a Buick Bengal-type version too, but that hasn't happened for various reasons. Before Lutz came to Chrysler, it was typical for all USA car companies to have 4-5 year lead times before new models could be developed. With the LH cars, that was shortened to more like 3 years. Chrysler, being a smaller company, could make things happen quickly whereas the big unweildy company that GM had become would take longer. Many more side issues to deal with at GM too, all of which had to be done "correctly". You wonder why Lutz first focused on "interiors"? That's one aspect of the vehicle plan that CAN be changed in the short term, as new engines and transmissions and sheet metal have longer lead times to orchestrate. In the case of DChrysler, everybody suspected that "immediate improvements" would happen in "quality" and such, as if some ("Ford style") light bulb suddenly light up with "better ideas" and ways to do things. In reality, from what I've seen, Chrysler already had some pretty decent quality items and machinery "pre-merger", and probably could have done the same things that DaimlerBenz wanted them to do if they'd determined to do them. A very similar version of the "quality gate" system was already in place at the Viper plant anyway . . . Some very "close" drawings of what became the Chrysler 300 were on a Chrysler-oriented website before the "merger" took place too! In other words, much of what the Daimler people might have effected in product has not really happened just yet, other than some "under the skin" items--they were dealing with what was already in place, basically. Lutz at GM is highly similar. In the DeLorean book, the many "financial vs. engineers" turf battles are mentioned. After reading those chapters and looking back, when the engineers were in charge of things, product immensely benefited with new engineering advances and innovations. When the financial people were in charge, product tended to stagnate as did innovations AND sales. From the way his book "GUTS" reads, Lutz knows how to play "both sides of the street" to mutual benefit. In other words, you can spend the same money and design something "world class" that will generate sales and profits (cutting design time in the process) or you can do something of lesser execution. It's been a while, but many people probably might not recall that it was Rick Wagoner that went to Lutz to see if he knew of a "car guy" he could hire. The time (and planets must have been aligned) and Lutz basically said "What about me?" From postings in other boards, there is still a general perception that GM is run by "entrenched" people that will not change. With all of the early retirement buyouts and other staffing decreases and reconfigurations over the past decade, plus normal attrition, I really suspect that perception is not very operative. Not to mention many of the "recent hires" that came from Chrysler in the mix--people that used to work for Lutz when he was there, for example. In other words, the GM of today is nothing like it was even 10 years ago. Consider, if GM had not been doing lots of things "under the normal radar" over the past decade to make itself a better corporate operation, it could NOT have sustained in the current economic climate as it has, especially post-9/11. Not to say that GM management has made some suboptimal decisions on product during that time. GM might have handed Ford the police car market and the pony car market, but Chrysler handed GM and Ford their entire full size van business (custom conversion and commercial too)! Very possibly MORE total volume that either the F-body and police car business meant, combined, and more profitable too. It was also revealed that the recently-retired GM design chief had been quietly building a group of premier designers--including the designer of the PT Cruiser. Where are their designs? Probably getting ready to happen--if and when "financial" claims they can, yet they are still a few years off due to normal platform replacement cycles. Some are also probably in Europe too! It might be "popular" to bash Lutz for GM's current product situation, but when he came to GM, he didn't have nearly so "clean sheet of paper" to start with in the product arena (as he might have at Chrysler). He's had to deal with what was already too far along to change, yet make what positive impact he could in the time he had to do it. I didn't like it when he was shuffled to Europe a while back, but they have many problems over there too. Lutz has "history" over there too (read the book). In the mean time, even if you might not feel the GM vehicles are "up to date", GM is on the way to being one of the most efficient producers of vehicles AND has been steadily whittling away at the upper bunch of JDPower awards too. GM now has more vehicles in the "Above Industry Average" and (I believe) the "Top Ten" list of JDPower surveys than any other single car maker. It's also really easy to say that certain GM carlines should be eliminated due to lower-than-last-year sales. If you look at the 1st quarter sales figures, there are some HIGHLY RESPECTED nameplates that are showing more sales decreases than the "need to be eliminated" GM nameplates! Also, you've read the speech that Mr. Flint gave several years ago (posted in this forum), now go to www.theautochannel.com and read his most recent article! The link to it is on the right hand column of that webpage. Yep, I wish that GM was a little farther along with their new product offerings too. But I also suspect that as soon as this whole "smokescreen" blows over, many will be surprised at what might be in the GM showrooms in a couple of years. BUT, repeat . . . BUT as allegedly bad as the "antique platform" GM vehicles might be, THEY ARE STILL SELLING WELL against others in their market segments. "Antique PLATFORMS"???? Who really was concerned that the 2003 and prior Ford Mustang dated to a 1978 Ford Fairmont "Fox" platform? The last-gen Camaro dated to 1982, but it was "dated"??? The whole Mustang situation just goes to show that seasoned designs, if suitably freshened and upgraded as necessary, can endure for the "test of time", just as the original Small Block Chevy engine has, or the TurboHydramatic 400 transmission (now with electronic controls and OD). Just as with the Social Security item that Pete mentioned, great designs can endure for ages with the correct amount of TWEAKING. NO need to reinvent the wheel just to please the press (which sometimes has THEIR own agenda to champion). Yet that is not a good analogy with respect to GM's current situation. Being competitive in the marketplace is, similarly, about perceptions and listening to "experts", but as Lutz mentioned in the book, you have to recognize that many times (as in marketing surveys) you get bad information that looks like "good" information. THAT is the similarity of SS and GM at the present time, I suspect. I will concur that, in some respects, GM seems slow to change its ways. I still see remnants of the failed brand management "things"--which should have been gone long ago. Other times, it seems that GM doesn't want to do very well as it might get the Feds to reopen the old Sherman Anti-Trust proceedings of the 1960s. Other times, it seems that they can't do anything without shooting themselves in the foot, product-wise. Yet, there are other aspects of the whole operation (which the general public does not know about) where GM is light years ahead of where it was 5 years ago (much less 20 years ago!), not to mention being ahead of Ford and DChrysler in these same areas, possibly. Right now, by all accounts, Lutz is the best person to have the best chance to get GM pulled through its suboptimal situation. No one other auto exec seems to have the same blend of product saavy and financial knowledge to make it all work AND deal with the problems that seem to be unique to GM. Everybody like to bash the unions for all of GM's financial problems, but they are an easy target. So is the pension fund cost or health care cost. Yet the unions did what they were getting paid to do (for their members). On the surface, the employer "match" for the pension fund seems highly extravagant (by current standards), but if you'd been on the production floor in a highly repetitive labor operation for many years, it could well all "come out in the wash". Getting concessions in health care co-pays and decreased pension fund "match" are all short term fixes. The money saved typically will NOT be plowed back into product, but will (and typically has) gone to other places in the operation (just as the "saved" money from not having to support Oldsmobile has seemed to go other places, as Mr. Flint mentioned). In any sales operation, it's about A) product, effective advertising, and C) being competitive. B can enhance A and affect the positive perception of C. From my perspective, one of GM's current problems is B, which can affect the public perception of C, whether A really is competitive or not. I was looking in a 2005 Chevrolet Impala brochure on Friday. Many references to "Class Leading Fuel Economy" in the base Impala with the 3.4L V-6. When's the last time you saw THAT in a newspaper advertisement? Much less a listing of EPA highway fuel economy that would point out just how good fuel economy that so many GM cars are rated at? You can discount those government mileage ratings if you want, but they are "the level playing field" situation that is needed for valid comparisons (and, by my observations, a little conservative too). How about TWO ads on one newspaper page . . . EPA fuel economy with GM vehicles highlighted on the top, JDPower survey results on the bottom, with a "GM Mark of Excellence" logo in the middle?? Have a great future! Plan for it NOW! Keep the faith! NTX5467

The key thing in the fuel filter quote was if that was "parts and labor, approximately" or just for the part. If it was just for the filter, that is a little pricey, especially for an aftermarket filter by itself. If it was for parts and labor, then it'd be about right. By observation, if you break the fuel line open right after you stop the motor, it'll have a good bit of pressure built up. If, as mentioned, you let it sit for a while, the pressure can decrease. Can be the difference in a "gas spray" moment or just a dribble. If you have a place to do it, get somebody to show you the tricks. If not, let somebody else do it and make sure they do it--and use an OEM quality filter. When the filter starts having too much internal restriction (for whatever reason), the fuel pump has to work harder to get the fuel through it (pressure and volume). That means extra heat that can also make the fuel pump draw more current throuth the wiring in the fuel pump module--which can lead to melted wiring insulation AND the need for a new fuel pump module ($500.00, p&l, later). If you start hearing a high pitched whine from under the car in the area of the fuel tank, get that filter changed IMMEDIATELY. That's one of the first signs that the pump is having to work too hard. If "extended crank time" happens, you might as well get ready to open the check book or activate the plastic . . . Also, with a 16 gallon tank, 1/4 tank = 4 gallons of fuel in it and 1/8 tank = 2 gallons. NEVER let the tank get completely empty nor run out of gas. That can be a quick way to kill an in-tank electric fuel pump in short order--regardlesss of how new it might be. Enjoy! NTX5467

I read that speech after he gave it. It might have been in Automotive News? I can imagine that many people in that audience were figetting around during his talk. Some were probably agreeing, others might have been wanting to, and still others didn't believe the "old coot" knew what he was saying. Sometimes, Mr. Flint can get a little strong and plain in his language, but he's usually pretty dead on in the message. The time table he mentioned was reasonably accurate too. His speech was supposed to be a wake up call, but many probably dismissed it as the rambling comments of somebody that was past their prime and disconnected from reality. Many knew where the "disconnect" really was, but could not admit it openly. I wonder how he was "approved" to make such a speech, if the subject matter (and transcript) might have been known before the fact? In retrospect, it seems strange that with so many "wasted" money situations, that a good financial person might have stopped something before it got worse? Board members should have been alarmed, but apparently were not. Or were they "overpowered" for some reason, to not follow their "best judgment"? Lots of not-admitted-to issues. It was probably easy for some to write-off his comments back then, but they definitely turned out to be more truth than fiction. Thanks for reposting it, so that those that might not have seen it when it happened and those that might have missed it could read it. Enjoy! NTX5467

Biodiesel plant being built near Denton, to supply that fine city with diesel fuel. I suspect they'd sell some of the excess . . . Otherwise, the next closest plant is supposed to be in the panhandle, near a cotton seed oil mill. You forgot one thing . . . biological methane production. I'm sure the legume producers could benefit too. Just got to figure out the right "jetting" . . . as storage issues are already taken care of. Enjoy! NTX5467

Each engine combination has it's "happy zone" where it acts better than in other rpm ranges. In one of my "other" cars, this was very apparent as throttle response at 60mph was a little soft, but at 62mph, it got real "tight". In prior times, it might have been called "being on the cam", but in more recent times it's about "building cylinder presssure". Sometimes, you have to pay attention to feel it, but it's more evident in other situations. The "running too slow" issue can relate to camshaft timing/duration (with respect to engine size). Back in the '70s "fuel crisis" era, it was highly popular to use shorter-than-stock cam timing/duration in order to shift the operational range to a lower rpm level to better "pull" the lower numerical (higher) rear axle ratios. Yet a friend had a '79 Corvette that he put a Comp Cams 268 in (that year Corvette had a 3.55 rear axle ratio and ran 20mph/1000rpm on the highway, hence a 3000rpm cruise). That cam with that rear axle ratio/tire size combination built cylinder pressure in the cruise rpm range so it got better fuel economy than stock, with more power. When that cam was idled at 500rpm, it had a serious rump-rump factor, but when it was idled at the more "normal" 700rpm, it smoothed out just like a stock cam. If you want to do some fine tuning, get the H-P Books "Quadrajet" book. It tells how to phase the power piston spring and make some other adjustments to the carb for best results. PLUS GM part numbers for various springs, jets, and metering rods. The QJ is highly tuneable, but you have to know what you're doing (which the book covers). It also goes through the procedure of how to optimize the primaries for economy and then make up for it on the secondary side to still make power. I don't know that there would be enough difference in power consumption with 5W-20 rather than 10W30 to justify using it. About the only maker spec'n the 5W20 is Ford and it IS a bandaid fuel economy fix, as I understand. Just seems a little "light" to me. If you account for some viscosity degradation with use, the 10W30 used to approach 20W viscosity (especially in earlier times), so you can see where the 5W20 might end up. Nothing heavier than 10W30 has the starburst "fuel conserving" notation on the oil can. Also make sure that the exhaust crossover in the intake manifold is operational. Having the "hot spot" in the plenum is a fuel evaporation aid for better atomization of the fuel/air mix. It can also serve as the "crossover" in the exhaust system for a quieter sound. You'll probably have a cruise rpm in the 2200-2600rpm range. I don't suspect that would be "running too slow". Should be on the bottom edge of the rise of the torque curve too, which is good, and would also indicate good "cylinder pressure". In the KB-Silvolite piston website, there are lots of neat forumulas in the Panic Tech papers. One is for "effective" compression ratio with "mechanical" compression ratio. You might also check on the pistons and such too so that you can fill in the blanks in the compression ratio formula. Remember too, the head cc volumes are "blueprint minimum" rather than "as produced" (the latter is usually more than the spec). Some highly interesting bench racing material! The 700R4 is basically the same strength as the prior THM350. It can be beefed to handle big block torque, typically. The main reason that racers "love" it is the 3.06 low gear ratio, yet that also means a huge chasm of gear spacing between the 3.06 low gear and the 1.72 2nd gear ratio. Whereas a THM400 is 2.48/1.48/1.00 , which means that the engine can stay more in the torque range as the trans progresses between the gears. If an OD trans is used, the rear axle ratio could then be in the 3.42 range as OD is about .68. One thing to consider in the OD transmission issue is something mentioned earlier--inertia weight. If the car has a 3.42 rear axle ratio, the driveshaft will still be spinning the same speed for a given road speed whether the trans is a 3-speed or an OD 4-speed, yet in OD, the engine will be running slower. An alum driveshaft could diminish that somewhat as it's lighter to start with. Enjoy! NTX5467

Other posts in here a while back mentioned something like 20mpg at highway speeds with '69 spec (if I recall correctly) in Electra 225s. That car would have had the 2.93 rear axle and what would now be P235/75R-15 tires. If you went with P225/75R-15 tires, then something in the range of 2.7 rear axle ratio would have the same cruise rpm levels. In the case of the '66 Canadian Chevy mentioned, the standard ratio would have been 3.08 for BelAir/Biscayne level cars and 3.36 for Impala level cars. Standard tire size on those cars was 7.75x14. Unless it had optional gears, it would most probably be turning about 24mph/1000 rpm. It would be interesting to see how it acts in "the hills", especially with the lower intake manifold vacuum at cruise in OD (which also decreases "pumping losses" in the engine for better fuel economy). With respect to using the THM350 in place of the THM400, the power absorption difference (as quoted in Super Chevy magazine many years ago) is only 15 horsepower. Once all of the reciprocating weight difference (in the drums and such inside the trans) is stabilized at cruise speeds, it should not take that much more fuel to run than a THM400. Using an aftermarket "tighter" torque converter would be an option, as would using a SwitchPitch converter (and front pump) with a 2.5 area rear axle ratio. The THM200R4 is another "low power consumption" transmission as its design application was 4 cylinder and V-6 engines. It can be beefed up to last behind the Buick 3.8L Turbo motors (which usually have some sort of "mods" done to them), but did not come that way in something you'd find in the salvage yard. What you MIGHT find is a lighter duty THM400 from some early '70s full size GM BOP cars, like would have come behind a 400-2bbl type engine. Typically, the cruise rpm in OD will need to be higher with a carb than fuel injection, by observation, ESPECIALLY with any cam that's hotter than stock. Many of the '80s V-8s that came with OD automatics also had tamer cams than in the past, yet could also have had better exhaust systems under them. Basically, a torque motor that would make rpms. A carb relies on air flow through it to meter the fuel whereas the FI system (even a TBI system) dispenses fuel acccording to demands at any air flow rate--a big difference. What you need to focus on, more than anything, is whether or not you want to run 87 pump octane or 93 pump octane fuels. Forget about total horsepower but focus on torque in the lower and mid-range, yet also use a 2.5" dual exhaust (ultimately) to help preserve higher rpm power. Exhaust backpressure will be a factor in high rpm power, but not so much in cruise economy. IF you match the '69 430 specs (which are also 10.0+ compression), you'll be in 93 pump octane territory. There is some current discussion about using quench distances (between the piston and the flat areas of the combustion chamber in the cylinder head) which are less than .040 (or is it .020"?) tha will decrease sensistivity to octane levels and still maintain high efficiency and power from the higher compression ratio. A "backup system" would be to use GM HEI distributor, but also add the knock sensor and computer from a middle 1980s Chevy/GMC 1/2 ton pickup (which would have had a high compression 305 V-8 from the factory). The knock sensor will screw into one of the block's drain plugs, the "box" can be hidden inside the car, and the wiring will need to be extended somewhat. This is the "Electronic Spark Control" system, which uses a different module in the HEI to retard the timing when spark rattle is "heard" by the sensor. That's the ONLY way it affects timing or distributor operation. This is a stand-alone system as those federal-spec engines did not have full electronic control of ignition timing or fuel curves. End result, if you start modifying the engine from the factory specs of '69 (at all), you could well upset the obvious "sweet spot" which the specs on that engine seem to enjoy. One of those situations where anything from the "combination" that might change could make a drastic change in fuel efficiency. Another "heard and read about" situation in that situation would also be the particular QJet carb they used back then. Many car magazines back then mentioned that their test cars seemed to get exceptional fuel economy in certain rpm ranges. The triple venturi primaries on those carbs seemed to have a similar sweet spot in the air flow rates through it that seemed to be "super efficient", hence better atomized fuel mixture to the engine. If I was going to recommend a "combination", it would be that '69 spec 430, the HEI with the knock sensor items mentioned, a higher output coil, .45"-.60" spark plug gaps, some of the later style platinum or Iridium plugs that take less power to "run" (meaning less stress on the ignition system), magnetic suppression wires of standard HEI diameter (6mm or 7mm), if you build a motor you might also consider some "coated skirt" pistons from various manufacturers with stock compression ratio specs, port match the intake manifold to the heads, a fresh valve job with Buick-spec Nickel plated valves (for better unleaded fuel tolerance, as mentioned in Denny's engine seminar in Flint), a good valve job with probably some bronze helicoil valve guide work. As for the car, if there's supposed to be a front air dam under the radiator, it needs to be there too. Wider tires and such might look good, but the wider treads also result in more effective "frontal area" of the vehicle. Using the stock size or even a comparative 70 series radial would be pretty good. The more modern radial designs (which are also GM OEM spec tires) will usually have less power consumption than non-OEM spec tires. It would not bother me to have a 2.93 or 2.7 rear axle ratio (the SP converter setup would help low rpm punch, IF that's really an issue with a 430 CID engine). Ultimate fuel economy can also be highly affedted by driving tactics and wind resistance. Even a 15 mph headwind will knock the fuel economy on a current year model Impala LS (for example, as that's what I was driving this weekend, watching the Instant Fuel Economy readout) was observed to be 25mpg rather than the 31mpg it would get at 65mph. In that respect, I would suspect the Riv to be better than an Electra, but by how much might be debateable. As for driving tactics, keeping the carb out of the "power mixture" is highly beneficial. Using the cruise control on the highway, when safe and possible, is the best way to get better fuel economy too--especially on the newer fuel injection cars. Using moderate acceleration will get the vehicle to cruising speed (and into the most economical fuel consumption range) sooner, whereas using the older "slow and easy" pace will delay that process at not much additional savings (this is very apparent when you watch the Instant Fuel Economy readout on a newer car). Once at cruising speed, rotational weight (flywheel, torque converter, transmission internals, driveshaft weight, wheel/tire weight) is pretty much a moot point, BUT when acceleration is desired, THAT's when lighter weight in those components becomes a factor (in acceleration and related power to make such happen). You also might consider setting the engine up on the tighter end of the specs and then run 10W-30 synthetic motor oil in it. Also do NOT use anything more than stock oil pressure (another power consumption issue!). Adding synthetic lube in the rear axle might help too. With respect to taking friction out of the motor, adding roller rockers or roller tip rocker arms would be pretty easy to add. The coated skirt pistons would be similar. Making sure the line bore on the block is true will make sure things in that respect ensure the crank will spin true and easy. KEY THING would be to make the fuel combustion process as efficient as possible without changing the basic specs of the engine (which appear to be pretty optimum "as is"). Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Great points, Mike! It's my orientation that we should all be on this earth to enhance the quality of life of the whole situation (I used to say "help each other have a good life", but that's been modified a little). This is a valid orientation until peoples' egoes might get involved, or they use their orientations to "validate" their existence. Yet, whenever a group of people get together, somebody will very probably try to identify and pigeonhole various others of that group into certain divisions "He or she seems to like what I might", "He is a/an _______", or "We just don't get along". This is perfectly normal in human nature as we try to determine "friends and enemies" in any group. All of this for people that might have a common interest in the first place! Another issue that can come into play in automotive groups is the "dirt under the finger nails factor". By observation, the automotive enthusiasts of certain brands of vehicles will typically have great knowledge of their vehicles' mechanicals and designs (as they've actually worked on them) than others (who typically let somebody else work on them, as they might be better able to afford it or they might lack expertise or desire to do same). There can also be both of these orientations in one particular car club too! So, for the younger member coming into the group, who is seeking knowledge and possible mentoring in various areas, finding the people with the "real knowledge" is a quest of sorts. I mention "real knowledge" I have seen people that were alleged to have real knowledge, when all they had was "book knowledge". The distinction in those two knowledges can be narrowed greatly if the book the knowledge came from were "credible" in all respects--which can be a highly variable situation, sometimes, but if the book had incorrectnesses in it, the the perception of "accuracy" can become a significant issue in a "correct" restoration. The "dirt" factor comes into play in this mix too. Those who like and can do their own work (and also manually chase parts in the salvage yards) can find lots of parts differences where it might be perceived there would be little or no difference. Plus knowing which mechanic/technician does correct or good work compared to those that claim they do. Put the "book knowledge" person with a mechanic that "claims" they will do the work to factory specs, and it can be an accident waiting to happen--with the vehicle being the ultimate loser (botched repairs, etc.). Many of that combination of factors might not be readily apparent, unless the final work is inspected . . . or when it might fail later . . . or when the vehicle is trying to be sold and the potential buyer (who knows what they are looking at) finds out just what has been done to the vehicle. In any social group, there will be those that get along, those that do not, and those that are somewhere in the middle. Yet ALL of them can possibly possess accurate and credible information for those that seek it. Only thing is to look for a consensus rather than "fact" up front. Once really credible information sources are located (human and printed), that should narrow the search of where to find information on certain subjects (or even referrals of where to find the information). Sometimes, this can take a few years as friendships are made and credibility levels are established. Other times, the "vibes" (not Pontiacs) are that club members are more interested in social things than cars, but this is not completely bad either--priorities can change as WE age too. Still, as a younger person (in prior times), I always liked to listen to older people talk about things--even cars they had in THEIR earlier times. One of the few things we get out of this life with are our memories. Each of us might well have some memories worth passing on to others in order to help them achieve their goals in life (or with cars! or other hobby) pursuits. Many are qualified to mentor others who might have different or "not yet" experiences too. Many car club/BCA chapter members have a wealth of knowledge in many diverse automotive areas . . . the kind of wealth that can pay dividends when shared with others and also in their own personal automotive pursuits. In the case of larger social groups (from which I might gain knowledge from the collective membership), I might go into the "tolerance" mode so that I can increase my total informational database, initially. I might not like them personally, or agree with the way they do things, but if there's any information to be gleaned from their expertise, that can be a good thing OR it might lead to a later discovery of something that will have the ultimate answer to a question. I also know that just because somebody is a member of a car club does not necessarily mean that what they might say is "gospel", but when you hear the same things from a diverse group of people, there's a really good possibility that what you are hearing has a good deal of truth in it. Unfortunately, these things don't happen in a short timeframe. As with other things, it's about the "network" each enthusiast migth build for themselves. THAT's where the comfort level of things will usually end up, eventually. Whether it's the BCA, AACA, VCMA, local chapters thereof, or a local "lone wolf" car club, the enthusiast needs to be with other indivduals that are generally a "good fit" with them and what they might be trying to accomplish (or be variable conniseurs of). THIS is what makes things fun and worthwhile--which has been observed to be a highly variable situation too (even within the ranks of enthusiasts that have similar interests). So . . . everybody participate at the upper tolerance levels of enjoyment in the automotive hobby (which can also relate to available funding tolerance levels too!). Share credible knowledge when possible too, but don't "preach" either. If many might recall, when we were younger, we always tended to focus on an older person that we liked and sought their trusted judgment. As we progress, WE are now that older person (in many respects). Please act accordingly for the mutual benefit of our lives and the future of the automotive hobby. Sometimes, "odd couples" can be beneficial. The bluebonnets and Texas Wildflowers are bloomin' and now I'd better go see them! Happy Motoring! NTX5467

Many times, production specs change or are upgraded as time progresses, which CAN generate number changes,different part specs (which are backward compatible), different designs, different supply vendors, etc. These changes can also generate different stamp codes, date codes, and even a different "look" than the original part--why the "intense" restoration people search for the date codes and stamp or production codes for their "exactly correct" restorations. Many parts in the then-current model years of production are designed for particular and specific applications. A great example of this is fan clutches. Engineering might spec a different fan clutch for one model of vehicle that has a cut-in temp 2 degrees different than for the same engine in a different body style (which might have slightly different air flow-through-the-radiator issues). All in the interest in better performance for the customer in certain conditions. Yet, those two applications might be combined into one part number in the next model year of production, or a year or so after that, or there could become just one part number for that engine in subsequent years. For example, when the '88 C/K trucks started having heat issues in summer, GMTech Assistance recommended the "snowplow" option code fan clutch (an application that would be "foreign" to those outside of the snow belt). That turned out to be the heaviest duty fan clutch, and it worked well. In the next year's model fan clutch listings, all of the fan clutch listings that were for a/c were the former snowplow fan clutch part number. One of the best aftermarket catalogs for fan clutches used to be the Perfect Circle/Dana catalog. These were the correct configuration fan clutches of the time, as PC/Dana was an OEM manufacturer and they were identical in all respects to what was in the GM or Chrysler (by observation) factory box. Whether they built them all might be debateable, but that particular line of replacement parts typically exactly mirrored what came on the vehicles from the factory. What was, or has been, in the ACDelco boxes typically are similar. Yet, as time progresses, the fan clutch part listings become much more "combined" the more years the part is from original production--i.e., more universal, even to the extent of having the slotted mounting flange for the water pump, rather than with drilled holes at the exact mounting circle diameter. In the '90s, I had found one AC-Delco part number for a particular Chrysler A-body 340 V-8 application. The only one that was specific to that car, determined that some were in the Chicago warehouse, and ordered two of them for a customer. What came in was highly interesting. The front side of the aluminum casting was exactly OEM, but the rear half was purely "aftermarket" and it also had the slotted mounting flange. As this was for a vehicle that needed a "correct" look . . . not acceptable . . . and a different "batch" than when I'd ordered that same part number previously. The current GM part number for the gas cap is 22525302, which is about 13 number changes from the 7470061 part number listed (in "history" for that part number in the GM parts database) as being in effect on 09/76, which then changed to 556389 on 11/77. This part number of gas cap is pretty much for all GM carlines in the '77-'81 timeframe--not Buick-specific as such. Enjoy! NTX5487

With all due respect, if you do find an original part number (which, at this point in time will only be found in a late '76 printing of a Buick parts book), it will have changed numbers about a dozen times before you can get one out of GM parts. It will not look like the original, in some respects, but it will be "correct". The other issue is that there were, typically, no markings on the caps that would relate to a GM part number. Yet there might be some graphics that would relate or identify it as "period correct", if that matters. When the car was built, the gas caps were pretty "generic" within General Motors cars. No particular Buick cap as such, that I recall, even if it was a GM Accessory locking gas cap. If you desire a "correct for the vehicle" gas cap, getting one from a GM dealer or through ACDelco would be the best way to do it. The real difference in the caps back then was the pressure release calibration inside the cap, regardless of what it looks like on the outside. Although it might be made by the same people that make the aftermarket replacement parts under other trade names, if it comes in a GM box, it has to meet the GM specifications and quality requirements of an original equipment part. The other thing would be that finding a dealer that might still have that original part numbered cap in stock would be highly unlikely. Gas caps were something that did not linger on the parts shelves at a dealership, unlike some other parts. Even if there might be some out there, the internal parts of the cap, plus the rubber items, could be adversely affected by the "shelf life monster", not to mention the rubber items not being compatible with modern reformulated or high alcohol blended fuels. It might work and hold up for a while, but eventually would start to fail or deteriorate. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

On the "discouraged" point . . . which is a very good one! Sometimes, people have grand plans and tend to get "in over their head" at some point in the whole operation. It's easy to talk about things, but something else to actually do them. Nothing is impossible to do, provided you have a place, sufficient tools, time, reference materials, and a willingness to learn new things "accurately". It might seem to be a "luxury", but working in the driveway, under a carport for example, can limit what you can do and when. It might be more "social" as the neighbors can see your progress and possibly come by to help or offer "suggestions", but having a garage building to work in can be much better (even if it's at the end of the driveway). That way, you'll have a place you can lock up and walk away from things (should the need arise). One of the things you'll need to try to do is not immobilize the vehicle or put it in a location that it will not have to be moved from. These are kind of common sense issues, but some that are overlooked in the zeal of the moment. Another thing is to allow about twice the time you suspect it might take to do something. Don't rush! If you are going into "uncharted waters", find a manual that covers what you've got to do. In the case of fwd vehicles, there are some unusual tools to do certain things--you either rent or buy them or take the car to somebody that has those tools and knows how to use them. Sometimes, even simple things like a bolt not threading into a hole can arise. It happened to me one time, a new bolt with sharper threads fixed it, but there was no reason the bolt I took out should not have gone back into the hole it came out of. I got a new bolt and got things back together, then put the original bolt back in. THAT time, it went back in like it should have the first time. In come intense situations, "words" might make you feel better but solve nothing. Being creative and using "1950s words" rather than "modern words" might help. Yet the ultimate fix is to walk away and get a cold drink and take a break. Restorations can be great learning experiences and highly educational. You might have some grand plan of where you want to end up with the project, but don't be afraid to scale things back a little, if needed. Doing little things, yet still being able to use the vehicle in the progress, can help. Every major project is made of many smaller "labor operations". Planning what needs to be done first and what needs to be in place for that to happen (parts, facility, time, etc.) is a key part of any car project. When it ceases to be fun, that's when you need to walk away for a while. OR if you need to escape the stress of the daily world situation, unlock the door and plan your next part of the project. Enjoy! NTX5467

This is a highly interesting development! It could be a way for Wagoner to take full "blame" for the situations or it could be a way to shield and protect and maintain Lutz and Cowger, should Wagoner be replaced by "whomever". As CEO, Wagoner is the one ultimately responsible, so him taking control of daily operations seems reasonable, most probably to the Theory X school of managers and financial operatives in the outside world. As much progress and advances in operations that Cowger and Lutz have made, perhaps what needs to be done next requires the clout of the CEO to make happen? Another side of the story is that GMEurope has many areas where they need the combined "touch" of Lutz and Cowger so they'll be more fully integrated into the GM Worldwide Family of Operations. GM hasn't been doing too well over there either, which is probably why Lutz was dispatched over there for many months (a while back). If Lutz and Cowger (and some of their staff too, most probably) are going to Europe to craft the architecture for GM in that part of the world (which will probably take months rather than weeks), Wagoner would be the one left "in charge". Lots of mixed signals from the tone of Wagoner's press release. What it all means will be something aking to "As The Driveshaft Turns . . ." "Tune in next week!" Just some thoughts, NTX5467

I'm not sure just WHY Holden has been able to develope some neat stuff, even if it might have Opel parentage hidden in the mix somewhere (yet adapted to V-8s), whereas all we had up here is somewhat mediocre by comparison (especially from an everyday person-enthusiast standpoint). AND Holden did all of that "off the radar screen" until word filtered out about the Lingenfelter V-8 engined Monaro and one such car appeared up here for corporate testing/validation for their home market. That's when Holden was "discovered". Ford never really did abandon rwd as GM and Chrysler did. The policitally correct people at DaimlerChrysler claimed they could not have returned to rwd without "parent" Mercedes' help (but that's another story line all together!!!). Now, rwd is necessary due to the horsepower race that has been brewing for quite some time. "Numbers" seem to be everything, all of a sudden, when 5 horsepower can mean bragging rights for a particular product (even if that extra 5 horsepower, when filtered through the various drivetrain parts, pieces, and tires, is barely significant. Yet in advertising AND to some people, it's everything. In current times, horsepower is more important than fuel economy, yet fuel economy seems to be only important to the CAFE operatives--at least it used to be that way. With the generally great fuel economy of current GM vehicles, especially the larger ones that don't yet have the high tech DOD systems, that should be something that GM is really hitting hard on--luxury, size, class, and "class leading" fuel economy. Of course, many people don't seem to put much faith in the EPA figures, but I've observed them to be pretty accurate and possibly a little too conservative in some cases. Still, if a LeSabre is EPA rated at 29mpg EPA highway and a Chrysler 300 Touring (3.5L with more rated horsepower) is rated at, say, 27mpg EPA highway, if five horsepower is great for advertising, in the current environment, those two extra mpg ought to be huge. The whole platform "name game" at GMNA is getting a little "strange". It seems to be worse than chasing ancestors! What lives, what dies, what's mutated from what, what's "premium", what's "mass", what's kin to what? Too much mumbo jumbo! The PTCruiser exists at its more modest price points due to its many attributes,which includes not being/looking like anything else on the market now. I suspect the T-bird never really took flight this time due to dealer "availability" charges and such, yet it was more about image than mass market. Yet whatever volume the T-bird might have not realized, the 2005 Mustang is more than making up for that. With the T-bird going back into the archives, reckon the Mustang Grande might return??? Sometimes, I wonder if GM is afraid to "re-sell" their buying public on the new-found merits of rwd? Or if it's got more to do with maintaing "investment grade" ratings with the financial people. LOTS of possible scenarios, many with credible validations, but not "the real reason". Moving on down the road . . . the last time GM had a "reckoning" in the early '90s, the "financial people" took control from the "engineering people" and product was delayed, products with driver's side air bags that Chairman Lee touted as on every one of His Cars. New "breakthrough" Olds Auroras arrived, along with a new logo that nobody knew what it was, not to mention "anonymous" Intrigues. Great products, but obviously somebody, somewhwere did not want them to survive. The pointy-nose compact Buick Specials lost their "style" due to the uncurved body side molding on the rear door of the 4-doors, and then the Special nameplate went away. Buick had a lessened model line, but with no real fuel economy "reason" for the Special to continue, the fact that Buicks still had great fuel economy ratings was not admitted to ANYWHERE, except on the window sticker. These discussions about what was needed when and WHY then can be endless. Not to mention how easy and inexpensive it would have been to make a few product tweaks that would have made much better product (as in equipment combinations and calibrations, for example, rather than "all new" designs). Or misguided marketing strategies that put certain models up against impossibly more competent competitors, or at least were perceived that way (where the tweaks with equipment might have paid off) or just plain bad "messages" from the sales pitch. And to think just how much money the people that made those decisions make/made compared to many enthusiasts that could have done more with less. Where the current situation will eventually end up remains to be seen. We're the innocent bystanders that want to cheer for the home team, but might end up putting our money on the other team(s). In the mean time, we can rejoice in the fact that we have some really neat Buicks in our garages, just that they aren't the newest things around. It's also CAR SEASON again! Enjoy those older Buicks as they were meant to be! Enjoy! NTX5467

By observation, for every "high price" car that goes through as a "high profile" situation, there are many relative bargains that are also there. These are the cars that can't be built for their auction price at that event. The whole event is geared toward the high end, final consumer, rather than collectors and investors as such. The demographics of those "final consumers" are such that they are buying what they want, with the prestige of a purchase from B-J in the mix too. All hype aside, by observation, with the efforts that Craig Jackson puts into these events to make sure that only the cream of the crop of potential vehicles is accepted (which can also be typically over-restored when compared to the "end of the assembly line" orientation) for those events. It's in his best interest to do that, especially when the auctions are "no reserve". Obviously, it would be hard for the commentators to always make completely accurate statements about American cars, they generally do a credible job in what they do. When the restored '56 Ford pickup went through, it was obvious that they did not know WHY a wooden bed would be advantageous in a truck of that sort, compared to a steel bed. For the answer, you have to consider how the trucks were used back then AND what they "hauled to market". Equipped with side boards around the bed, hauling livestock to market, the animals have much better footing on a wooden slat bed floor than if it was solid steel. Keeping them on their feet, rather than sliding around in _________, is better for when they get to the sale barn. I'm not sure about Ford or Dodge, but GM offered wood floors in their light trucks until the 1973 C/K trucks were introduced. I'm also somewhat amused at the use of "recreation" rather than "clone". As if they are supposed to be something different? Oh well, it's over with for a while . . . I'll check the B-J website to check on the sale prices. The bad thing is that the generally higher prices at these events are perceived to be "real world" rather than for highly detailed and spiffed and shined vehicles. In many cases, having accurate documentation is vitally important in order to achieve those lofty prices. And, of course, sometimes when bidding "wars" break out, that really makes people smile. As was mentioned on Saturday, "What's another $1000.00 when you're already at $_______ to get the car of your dreams?" Enjoy! NTX5467

Yep, the "never to be produced" (as in the concept, at least--verrryyyyy important qualifier!!!) Blackhawk sitting in a Buick showroom as a real production vehicle would probably have the deposit and downpayment checks flying from those leather-encased checkbooks much like the engines jumping from under the hoods of vehicles (as they "motored" on over to that nearby Pennzoil oil change sign) of owners that did not use a certain brand of motor oil. With a Corvette style chassis under the car, it might upstage the XLR at the Bowling Green assembly plant? If the XLR is helping revitalize Cadillac, then WE know (from the highly enthusiastic acceptance of the Blackhawk EVERYWHERE it went, especially on the "acceleration exhibition" side of things) how the Concept Blackhawk would continue the Buick Heritage of smoooooth and powerful and classy transportation to newer and younger generations. Imagine just how it would look on Oscars night if all of the higher "list" celebrities all were driven to the awards in Buick Blackhawks!!!! (Yep, that might generate some Blackhawk "program" cars, but program cars with a real history.) Such a parade of Blackhawks would certainly put lots of glamour back into the Hollywood scene!!! Great photo ops would abound!!!! If Chrysler can afford a "run" of block castings of long-out-of-production engine families, then certainly GM/Buick could afford to do a run of some similarly improved Buick 455s (maybe even some in aluminum for the "recreation" hot rod crowd?). The rest should be easy. Add currently necessary engine management and other EPA required items (as I understand the Concept Blackhawk already had some of), and possibly seek some possible exemption for having to comply with the NHTSA crash testing, yet still have Supplemental Restraint equipment, and sticker it in the $60K range. Might just be a four year model run, as the last Thunderbird or Prowler did, but that would be enough. I can see it now, "Buick Produces Retro Roadster" . . . as the "retro bashers" crank up their "media machine" again. What these somewhat self-serving media types fail to understand (can we say "Get IT"?) is that "retro" means "history" and also "our past", a "past" that typically had some really good times in it, times that included having fun with cars and with our friends. To THIS group of buyers, "retro" is GREAT. THEY didn't see, first hand and in person, how young and old alike drooled over the Concept 2005 Mustang, nor the combination exhibition that Buick had a few years ago with the Cielo, Bengal, and Concept LaCrosse. The buying public still desires high style and high class transportation, even in our highly politically correct-charged world. They want something unique and innovative (which Concept Blackhawk would be), some of the same things that drove the PTCruiser's popularity and something that rekindles thoughts of their youth (where the hot popularity of the 2005 Mustang comes in). And BUICK could provide that with Concept Blackhawk. Unfortunately, the window of opportunity to really cash in on the buzzz of having the Blackhawk at so many Buick events (factory and local) has mostly closed. To prevent the same ill feelings over the use of that name on anything other than a car that is TRUE to the concept (as in what Chrysler did by showing the '99 Concept Charger to EVERYBODY EVERYWHERE over the past few years, but then brings out a 4-door sedan that looks nothing like the concept, which, regardless of whatever "official" words from factory operatives were supposed to justify that whole "mess"; to a lesser extent, the use of "LaCrosse" on a more mundane Buick model rather than the snazzyyy (flagship-type) Concept LaCrosse that car show goers remembered), if the Production Blackhawk is not a 96% carbon copy of the Concept Blackhawk, similar to the Concept Viper and the first Production Viper, then it might receive the same "following". Unfortunately, the time to seize the moment of excitement over the Concept Blackhawk has pretty much ended. Another missed opportunity for General Motors?????? By observation, the "car guys" in the dealerships are in the "back side" of the stores, the techs that race cars on the weekends, the body shop guys that build their own cars, and the parts guys that get excited and involved in helping with those projects. A few nice hot rods and credible race cars can raise the excitement level of working in a dealership quite a bit, but might also raise the inquisitive questions of just how they purchased/procurred the items to make those vehicle what they are (i.e., "backdoor" supply, use of company facilities that did not product company revenues). There are some "front side" racers and car show people too, but as long as their work hours can be, it can take too much time from their hobby pursuits (got to pay for things too) and funding from their future financial nest eggs. There can be some underlying "car guy" orientations, but putting food on the table and a nice roof over their heads can take priority. In other words, you don't have to have real "excitement" about what you sell to sell it, just know about it and how to make the sale. Having you "heart in it" and product enthusiasm can help a whole lot, but are not necessary to be successful in most any business endeavor. The REAL question would be "How many investment bankers, investment sales operatives, and MegaDealer chain owners/investors are really "car people"? Many might have some ties to the automotive sales industry, or used to, but by the time they get to these higher "positions", I highly suspect most are only concerned with profits and losses at their properties/investments rather than having a sales force that is highly and completely product knowledge-competent (other than just factory-provided training courses). By observation, there seemed to be a lot more "car people" in the upper ranks of of Chrysler (in the '90s when they had a product blitz of new vehicles that were exciting and SOLD well) and Ford (afterall, the family name means "cars" and is on the sign). During those "hot" times, the product worked and produced profits as sales went through the roof and ALL plants were running at full speed. Vehicle excitement can be rumbling around in the lower levels of the organization, but unless it starts with a "top-down" orientation (which includes PRODUCT and EFFECTIVE ADVERTISING), things just don't seem to be work quite as well. PRODUCTS need to sell themselves, not the other way around. Sure, the mainstream Buick buyer would more likely purchase a production LaCrosse or LeSabre or Lucerne, but having a Production Concept Blackhawk in the mix (or a similar high level LUXURY PERFORMANCE car, sorry, I don't see the Velite or something called "Grand National" in that role, although they COULD be in the product mix too) would be the "halo" car that Buick needs (really, "has needed"). With the nice, angularly-oriented lines of the '63 era Rivieras, maybe it's time for something of that nature to resurface in a NEW Buick Riviera? A Riviera built as a snazzyy luxury 2-door vehicle with many classic Riviera styling cues. A TRUE four-place, 2-door vehicle (i.e., about a 116" wheelbase)! Rear Wheel Drive too!!! Afterall, there's going to be a need for some added production volume in the plant that builds the Cadillac ULS (similar to how Ford tagged the Thunderbird onto the existing platform of the Lincoln LS). Sneaking a recreated Buick 455 (with DOD and other current "things") could continue the Concept Blackhawk Buzzzzzz! Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Gene, I will strongly concur that product knowledge, past-current-future, is highly important in any sales venture--period. It's that way in car parts, cars, or anything else that a customer might trade money for (typically legal items, that is). Product knowledge can increase the salesperson's credibility (especially if they know more than just what the manufacturer tells them they need to know!) with the customer (if the customer can really perceive that this is so), which can and should lead to more satisfied customers in the long run. At least that's the way I see things. The problem with reading (and fully believing) what might be in the press on a future vehicle is that until that vehicle "hits the lot", things can change from what the public has seen in concepts and pre-production car show models until production finally starts. And then things can change after production starts too--the reason for the disclaimer that's been in most every automotive brochure for decades, regarding changes which might not be reflected in the particular sales literature. So you take all of the information from various sources, see what might be common with it, and remember that everything's a "rumor" until somebody actually gets a car. One reason that pre-production product knowledge from the manufacturer can be a "bad thing" is that if you still have some of the existing models to move out before the new ones come in, a salesperson might special order the new vehicle rather than sell the similar one on the lot. Or say "We've got this really neat car coming out in a few months, come back then . . ." YIKES!! If a sales manager heard that type of language, well, you get the picture. So, typically, the focus is in the present and not in the future. Or, on the other hand, if preliminary information (as possibly in some forum posts or comments) might indicate a particular engine choice or transmission offering, in the absence of any firm information from the manufacturer, the "incorrect" information is given to the customer, the customer "wants" that particular engine or transmission as "deal makers", so if they return to see the new car and find out something different is really in production, the "L" word could be operative. A good and knowledgeable salesperson should be able to explain the virtues of the "as produced" equipment, but some would not get that chance as the potential customer leaves as what they wanted is not available. At this point in time, what's on the website is highly tentative. The "competition" is mentioned and compared to the new vehicle. Price ranges are mentioned, but no final pricing. BUT when things start happening just prior to introduction, the "correct" information will happen and be readily available. By that time too, the sales brochures should be in the dealerships too. So, everything is staged, time-wise, in a carefully orchestrated manner. Prior models are sold out, new models arrive, new model information is distributed, as are dealership training materials and distance learning broadcasts, then "show date" arrives. One thing that GM does do, which I feel is highly important, is "hands on" dealer training events. Ride and drive portions along with classroom-type presentations (some of which can happen at the GM "Autoshow In Motion" events). Of course, "the competition's" vehicles are always there too, so you can see just how everything looks and performs side by side, plus getting in and out of them too. When it's all over, you take a test (fewer questions than if you do the testing via the website), and usually get a nice commemorative gift. Pretty neat deals, especially if you like to go out and burn somebody else's rubber (in a controlled environment setting). You get to know more about the vehicles than if you just see them on the lot or read the brochure, plus know more about the customers they'll attract and how to sell them. If I had a dealership, it would be mandatory that all of my sales (and some parts and service people too) people attended these events. But the downside to that is that if you have a customer you've spent time with and were getting ready to sign papers with, if they show up unannounced and their salesperson is not there, it might blow the whole deal. Several ways to look at it. Yet some sales people who do not have any dedicated customers coming in would not go, just in case they might miss a deal. To me, though, from what I've seen and participated in on these training days, missing that one deal would be offset by making more sales from the increased enthusiasm about the product by the salesperson that would be (hopefully) transferred to the potential customer. Remember too, we as enthusiasts are a little different breed of customer than the general public. We might chose a vehicle due to suspension and/or engine options, whereas a "general public" customer might be more concerned about a navigation screen configuration or some other cosmetic situation. We could well know more about a vehicle than the salesperson might, too, but that's just the FIRST half of the process (which is "our turf"), with the SECOND part of the process being financing and possibly choosing added accessories or extended warranty coverage. Before I bought a new car in '77, I decided that I'd go to some dealers away from where I live. I ended up at a larger metro area dealership with a decent salesman. He was willing to find any answer I had a question about (although I already knew the answer), but as much as I tried to appear as a "somewhat knowledgeable" customer, he got a little nervous that I might be a Mystery Shopper that would grade him on his performance. When asked, I told him I was not (although I certainly might have been, but then I knew more than most of them might also know about the desired product), but where I worked and what I was curious about. Without the pressure to perform, he got to be a pretty nice guy (especially as he'd only been there about a month) and we talked about various things on the car. I always advocate that consumers be "informed shoppers" in whatever they purchase. I tend to "overshop" for things, sometimes, but when I get ready to spend the money, I know that what I get is what will be the best product for my uses. All consumers should look at what they perceive is relevant to them and proceed accordingly, asking questions whenever necessary. Sometimes, you have to settle for something a notch or two less expensive than initial desires, or it could go the other way too. Yet one key thing is to spend the money with somebody you can trust and feel comfortable doing business with, now and in the future. I have seen both sides of the salesperson information scenario. Selling cars is not the easiest way to make a living and is not without long hours at work, but when a person is successful at it, builds repeat clientel, it can be rewarding and profitable. Enjoy! NTX5467

I concur, a major consideration in buying something to "restore" is availability of reproduction parts. Many Chevy and Ford cars have had repro parts available for ages (usually more for Fords, unless you want to consider Corvettes), but there are now many more available for other GM carlines than just Chevrolet or Pontiac. There can be lots of possibilities in make, model, etc. Maybe don't be looking for just ONE vehicle, but also similar vehicles maybe a year earlier or later than your target vehicle. One thing to resist is "repowering" the vehicle with a late model motor. Keep the stock motor (or upgrade to one of that same general vintage) so that the "later engine in earlier chassis" issue does not cause problems and more expenditures to make it comply with local emissions laws. "Fixing what you have" should be the operative situation. In general, I thing something in the '55 to '65 time frame might be easier to do (stock) than some earlier model vehicles. These were of a more "modern" design that tended to carry on for many years, hence more potential parts availability used and new. Might even extend that another 10 years or so, depending on where you might live. If you want a Buick, then attend some Buick shows to look at cars in person. Same with other makes of vehicles too. A good reason to start attending weekend cruise events or some of the regional and national level events that will start happening really soon. Generally, the closer to stock you keep the vehicle the more ultimately marketable it will be and better to find parts for. Maybe some changes could be made, but not too radical. You also need to decide just what "restore" means to you. Will it be "Get it looking good and running reliably enough to drive out of town" or "Rebuild everything and then get some nice paint on it" or "A fresh tune-up, new tires, new seat covers, a sound system, and new paint for the body"? How you define "restore" and how it's executed on the vehicle you purchase can be highly variable and definitely affect the funding issues at hand. You can make a good investment or make a good investment a bad one--all with the same money and energy. In choosing a vehicle, you might study the Old Cars Price Guide to get a general idea of which vehicles are appreciating in value and which ones are "stagnant" (and can be great values as a result). Plus look at the price variations from each level of pricing. If you buy that car for $1500.00, if you put a really nice and correct paint job on it, will the price increse by the several thousand dollars you spent on the paint? This is where you look at the value differences in a #4 and #3, or #3 and #2 to see if what you spend can be recovered when the vehicle is sold. Comparitively speaking, many luxury make vehicles are great values in the older car marketplace. Finding a nice one without a whole lot of optional power accessories might be better than one with every power accessory that could be had that year (i.e., power windows, power seat, power antenna, search tune radio, sunroof). Maybe even going a model "down" from the more desireable "top model" might be a good strategy too (as in a LeSabre rather than a Wildcat or Electra). Not to mention a "standard V-8" that would have a 9.00 to 1 compression ratio and rated for "regular fuel", plus a "highway gear" rear axle ratio. You might find the neatest car in the world, but it will need some work. Yet if the value for a #1 show quality (better than when it was build at the factory) vehicle will not be that much greater than what you just paid for the vehicle that needs some work, then justifying (to yourself or somebody else) all of the money you're spending will be worth it in the end could become an issue. If it makes you feel good about fixing up a car you love, then that's fine too. It's your money and you're the one that has to be happy with the project and where it ends up. Enjoy! NTX5467

About the only thing different on the outside of the car would be the grille and possibly some related items. The GS grille went in the same place as the Skylark and Skylark Custom grille, but possibly had some different surround trim or mounting items. Headlight bezels would be the same, but possibly chrome on the regular cars and painted body color on the GS models. Other than those things, the main differences would be the nameplates and maybe some chrome trim (or lack thereof). From what I've seen, most of the places to find the restoration items for those cars will be with the musclecar restoration people. Year ONE, Legendary Interiors, Auto Custom Carpet, Poston Buick, Original Parts Group (OPG), and a few others would be good sources. Lots of the "musclecar" parts fit the normal models too. Most of the companies that have Chevrolet or Pontiac restoration parts (unless they specialize in Chevies or Pontiacs) might also have Buick items too. But in a typical salvage yard search, do NOT mention the muscle car versions as the same part could suddenly cost more. You can also use some of the GS items to spiff up a regular Skylark too. Just depends on funding and taste. Enjoy! NTX5467

With all due respect, it's not surprising to find salespeople that are not "up" on the latest and greatest vehicles in the pipeline. Not their fault either, as they have to be more worried about what's on the lot (and selling THOSE vehicles) rather than worrying about what's coming 6 months from now. If ANY GM salesperson does not know about GMDealerWorld and all of the product information there (and in the GMCommonTraining website), they need to find out about it! Again, has to do with their focus on the present and not the future. There is information on the Lucerne in there. Maybe not pictures, but specs and target competitors and such. Maybe not as much as might be out in the press, but other information about projected sales, projected demographics or all kinds, and possibly some preliminary pricing too. PLUS the time line calendar for when the car goes into production, will ship to dealers for introductions, and the "media blitz" timing for the fall introduction. PLUS when dealer training materials will become available to them. By observation, few car salespeople are really car enthusiasts. There are some out there, but with their focus in the short term (as in moving "units" this month or this week or TODAY), 6 months can be a long time off. From their perspective, until it "hits the ground on their lot" and they see what information GM gives them to use, all of the car magazine stuff (at the present time) might as well not exist (speculation and misinformation?). After the car gets out into the press, THEN what the car magazines say will matter and possibly be quoted in the sales literature. At this time, about the only people really qualified to talk about Lucerne would be the "product specialists" or "presenters" of the car at the very few auto shows the Lucerne is scheduled to be at prior to formal introduction. And they might not have ALL of the information, just what they might need to do their job. So don't get too irate with the Buick salespeople about not knowing anything about the Lucerne just yet. They're still selling LeSabres, Park Avenues, LaCrosses, and maybe even a few residual Centurys and Regals--all of which need to be sold prior to Lucerne arriving this fall. And contrary to what some media types might imply, Buicks ARE selling NOW! Enjoy! NTX5467