NTX5467

These were some really nice cars, but sometimes sale prices tend to be very conservative compared to the "value" of the car, meaning lots of car for little money. They are not the hottest thing on the used car market now either. Olds did use a 403 in their similar Toronado in 1979 or so. Most were 350s, though. The Olds 307 is definitely not enough motor, especially in the "smogged" version, for most any car. Keeping things looking stock under the hood can be very helpful! Before you change the engine in ANY later model vehicle, be sure to check with your local vehicle inspection people to see if the different motor will affect what they check for in the emissions checks. Remember, too, most states now use the tried and true "later engine in early chassis" orientation such that ALL of the applicable emissions hardware of the later model engine must be transferred to the earlier model chassis for the vehicle to be registered for normal "on road" use. So, be sure to check before you turn a wrench. If something looks modified under the hood and the emissions are too high for the year of the chassis, things can get sticky really quick. There might be some exemptions for "antique" vehicles, but that registration classification is not "daily driver" either. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Air Injection Reactor (A.I.R.) pumps don't take much power to run at all, probably not any more than a power steering pump or alternator. Adding additional air downstream of the combustion process helps keep "the burn" going in the manifolds for better emissions out the rear pipe. One 500 cid Chevy street rod, several years ago, used an A.I.R. pump, running much faster than normal (with a smaller pulley) to help dilute the exhaust gas more than normal. The A.I.R. pumps came at a time when ignition timing was retarted from optimum, carburetors were a good deal leaner than they had been, and compression ratios had started to drop--all of these things resulted in less performance in themselves, individually, much less when combined all together. Then, EGR came later, which tended to weaken things in the normal driving speeds a little more. If the pump's noisy, and it's not the diverter valve making the racket, you can probably get a reman pump from one of the online parts vendors (i.e., www.rockauto.com or similar). One of the key things in any A.I.R. system is to make sure the check valves in the air manifolds (at the exhaust manifolds) are working. They are one-way check valves that keep the hot exhaust gasses where they belong instead of migrating upward toward the diverter valve and pump. It is MANDATORY that they be in good condition of the various supply hoses of the A.I.R. system can get too hot (melting or worse!). I know that those early emissions control devices were somewhat crude in design and operation, but they did help the cars be less polluting. When people used to remove the A.I.R. pumps (as a matter of course, seemingly), putting the 1/4x18 pipe plugs in the exhaust manifolds, after also removing the nozzles that went inside the exhaust manifold, made for a "patched" appearance at best. It would look much cleaner with manifolds that had no A.I.R. pipe holes in them at all. Then, if the other items of the system were also carefully removed, things would not look like there was something missing under the hood. A matter of finesse. All of the emissions system items were calibrated to work together for decreased exhaust emissions. Taking one item out of the mix could affect how the whole system works, but the degree of how it will change things could be debated. Sometimes, leaving things at "production specs" is best unless you know how these various control systems interact and how to tweak things when various items might be altered or deactivated. It's your car and you know what you have to deal with in your locale, with respect to emissions checks and related things. Enjoy and welcome! NTX5467

With all due respect, the presence of the word "represent" in this listing does mean more than "belong to" (which seems to be the way most everybody has responded). Yet, by the title of this being "represent", it would imply that all posts made by these responders are representative of the orientations of their respective chapters (and multiple involvements) and NOT of the responders individually. Perhaps the title could have been "What BCA Chapters Do Forum Participants Belong To?" That would have put a much more individual orientation on things. It IS good to see that many participants have many diverse vehicular interests! Respectfully, NTX5467

Everybody seems to be chasing profits -- at ANY cost. As much "cutting" and whatever else that GM's done for the past 20 years has resulted in no more "non-core" industries to sell when times sour. Every one of those sales has typically been accompanied by "to focus on the core business" type of dialogue, with all due respect. Well . . . the time is coming when the core business is ALL that's left. Then what's going to happen??? GM, and other companies, like to brag about their "global" culture. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not news that GM has been multinational for ages. But, somewhere in the whole scheme of things, it seems that the HOME MARKET should receive a certain emphasis as this is where "we're from". Let the Europeans be proud of the cars they build over there. Same with the Australians. Same with the Chinese. BUT when GM, Ford, or whoever forgets that their premier products should come from their HOME MARKET, something's already gotten out of whack--bigtime! The USA is where Chevrolet, Pontiac, Buick, and Cadillac are FROM--NOT anywhere else! Even Oldsmobile too, for what it's worth. To their credit, Holden has produced some really neat vehicles. But the current orientation of Global GM to start mixing and matching vehicles and nameplates to fill particular "blanks" seems to further point up just how much the "lean production" operatives perceive they should be "in control" of things. Yet, if GM desires to really make money, it's with the design disciplines that don't put millions of different parts in the parts warehouses without seeming regard to just what THOSE costs might be. Looking at the "front end" of the cost equation seems to be their only concern--short term or long term. GM seems to have a tough time grasping that reality as they keep putting Korean, Japanese, Eurpoean, and USA parts in the mix for the USA market. I guess since it's been "OK" to have oriental Chevrolets, Korean Pontiacs, now Aussie Pontiacs, German Saturns (of ALL things!), and German Cadillacs, it'll just be hunkydorie to have an Aussie Buick. Buick, being the founding brand of General Motors (meaning no disrespect to our Aussie associates) needs to be completely USA--period. Oh yes, Buick did have "captive imports" of Opel and Isuzu, but it was known they were not "Buicks", but an addition of sorts. Using Saturn as an example, it was an "import killer" brand from the start, with great little cars of great value at a really good price point. Many of the early Saturn buyers really took notice of the "Made and Designed in the USA" orientation, just as many also remembered Pearl Harbor too. Hence, the great cult following of that brand. Then, like Olds, it was starved for product. The thought of going to Opel for a new Saturn was a consideration well before it happened. Whether the "Made and designed in the USA" orientation was seriously diminished with the L-Series German Saturns or if the lack of new products, or even the decreasing numbers of the Pearl Harbor (even Pepsi?) generations, something resulted in Saturn sales still being flat with the infusion of "foreign" heritage product. Back in the 1990s, Chrysler was one of the hottest and most profitable car companies in the universe. Plants were running full tilt--ALL of them. Lots of "golden eggs" were being laid. They, like other car companies were looking at other global markets and had some production facilities in Europe. Just before a particular foreign venture exploded (literally), they backed away from it. Other than the modest European operations, their sole market was North America, Mexico, and Canada. Yet, not being global served them very well! Chrysler taught the industry lots of good lessons back then, but for GM and Ford to have completely followed suit would have been saying that Chrysler's way was right and their way was wrong. So, some lessons were heeded and some were not admitted to. The opportunists saw promise in the Pacific Rim and later in China. Ventures in those areas have generally been profitable (some more than others), but not the money trees some promoted them to be. Currently, China is the most profitable market and GM was already there when it happened, just as other European makers were. And now, China has become VERY important for other reasons too. Some VERY serious reasons, too! How these things play out IS in our control, somewhat. Key point, do NOT forget the home market and customer base as more dollars are spread more thin world-wide. Make GM products from the North American continent the best and most prestigious products in the world, as they used to be. If "best practices" of other GM entities are modified for the USA market customer, that should be part of "continuous improvement". If the USA market was not a good one, then the "import brands" would not be building factories here, as the USA brands head abroad. Who's guarding the hen house? For many years, the American Worker was said to be the reason for poor quality assembly--completely--yet the same American workers assembling a high build quality import tend to prove that design, rather than just the workers, might be the real issue (labor orientations not being considered). Perhaps we're being quite partisan here, but with Buick being the cornerstone of General Motors, that should be one of the best reasons to NOT do a "GTO Situation" of rebadging a vehicle not of USA nationality as a Buick. Buick is a North American Brand and needs to be respected as such WORLDWIDE--period! Buick does NOT need the controversy which has tended to keep the GTO from being the modern icon it could have been! It's one thing to internationally share engines, transmissions, etc., but it would seem that the current lessons of the Catera and GTO would send some powerful signals that USA are somewhat "anxious" about GM vehicles from other continents, as good as they might be in their own home markets, not being designed for all of the conditions they might experience in our country. In the long run, those "snakebit" customers probably then defected (my gut suspicion) to other brands--not good for GM sales and market penetration and related publicity. IF GM wants to bring Holdens to the USA, let it be integrated into the existing dealer network. NOT in drag. If they'd replaced Olds with Holden, that might have helped somewhat. But we've already discussed the "Oldsmobile situation" before and there's no need to go back there. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

If the choke thermostat is adjusted correctly, the general rule of thumb is for the choke to just close at about 65-70 degrees F AMBIENT. That means ALL parts of the engine are at that temperature, not just the air around it. You can use the marks on the choke thermostat mechanism as a rough guide, but the thermostats tend to get "stiffer" with age, meaning they'll close sooner and stay closed longer than they did when new. Hence, you'll probably end up with a "leaner" adjustment than "spec". Once stated, the choke pulloff should pull the choke blade open, if it's all the way closed before startup, about a 1/4 inch or so. There's a spec for that particular engine somewhere, but you can use that as a rough guide too. Key thing is that it starts and stays running when you put it in gear and drive off. If it starts loading up and running too rich, then a slightly leaner thermostat adjustment might be needed and/or the pulloff adjustment tweaked a little. Other key issues are to make sure the idle speed and mixture are correctly adjusted. The final "hot" base idle speed should be fast enough that it still runs smoothly in gear (as in sitting at a red light) with all accessories operating (i.e., with the a/c on, if equipped). The mixture would need to be also set to "lean best idle", meaning that each of the idle mixture screws is set for optimum/highest idle speed in their range of adjustment, yet also making sure the idle speed itself is still where it needs to be. It might take some tweaking of one and then the other to get things "right", but the time and patience will be well worth it. The number of turns "out" of each of the mixture screws should be approximately equal. Set the final idle speed such that when the air cleaner is reinstalled, it's where it needs to be (sometimes, the air cleaner being installed can lower the idle speed slightly). But before the carb adjustments are done, make sure the ignition timing is set to specs as this can also affect the way the carburetor adjusts out. Enjoy! NTX5467

Thanks for that immediately-past agenda post, Roberta! It might be nice to post the future agendas in here somewhere, but it also might be necessary to password-protect that particular area so it would be available only to BCA members. Thanks, again, for all of your contributions to the BCA in the past too! NTX5467

The other considerations needs to be that the ultimate name is easily pronounced by all citizens, in the USA and abroad. Plus being highly cognizant of what the name might really mean (in acknowledged dictionaries) in foreign languages. Supposedly, the whole Cadillac Catera advertising was changed by some "corporate wives" that didn't like Ms. Crawford in the ads. Not a good move for sales, as it turned out. If you understand what or how a letter series of nomenclatures progresses through the model line, as in Mercedes Benz, then it all makes sense--IF you know what it all means. Names of famous or senic or interesting venues has worked well in the past as have names of other things. Computer programs probably can't understand the human emotion which names might conjure up in the potential owner's mind with respect to a vehicle or product. A classy name on a lower end product can elevate it to greater success than a more mundane name would. Chevrolet did some ads for the Biscayne introduction in the Florida Keys, which was considered a somewhat exotic and fashionable part of the country at that time. BelAir was on the other side of the country, but similarly classy. These are some of the better examples of tie-ins with venues. I get some of the same Jetson's ideas from the Astro, but I modified it to "Astroid" in my references to it. Not a bad product, all things considered, just didn't have an interesting name. But better than "Lumina" by a long shot! Enjoy! NTX5467

With the feedback carb on the engine, just getting a better and more consistent spark event with each firing cycle can help with efficiency, performance, and fuel economy. Not particularly a brand or type of spark plug in ALL cases per se as there are some plugs gap designs that tend to work better in some combustion configurations than others do, by my own observation. The ECM is determining the fuel curve with input from the existing oxygen sensor, but I'm not sure why it's giving a lean code that is being attributed to the oxygen sensor itself (which is the primary sensor in that respect), unlike the more modern systems with multiples of oxygen sensors that check each other. I hope that the code book you used was for the particular YEAR of GM vehicle as the codes tended to change each year--hence, no "generic" code book back then. To clear the codes, you can either use a scan tool or disconnect the battery (saving any electronic presets in radios and such before you do this) for a couple of minutes. Adding a new oxygen sensor (OEM quality! and hopefully brand) as a new sensor in the system could, as a normal maintenance issue, make sure things are what they need to be for optimum performance, emissions, and efficiency. For good measure, you might also check any vacuum lines under the hood for deterioration, plus the little vac check valve by the power brake booster (where the a/c system gets its vacuum source). Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Greetings, everybody -- Re: BCA Board Agendas Funny thing is that I was thinking this morning (Sunday, 11:00am CST) of how it seems that some things that used to happen in prior times, with all due respect, that seem to not happen anymore. One is the annual chapter survey that was sent out by the BCA National Office (which also included a request for a current chapter roster) in December of each year. In that same orientation, as there is obviously some cut-off date for submission of items to be on the next BCA Board Members' meeting agenda, might this date be somewhat modified to have sufficient lead time for some document (printed or electronic) to be sent to Chapter Directors to share with their membership. We usually get a copy of what happened (after the fact and the Minutes are approved), but what about a copy of the agenda that's getting ready to happen? And also probably include items that are or will be placed on future agendas too? No full agenda packet would be needed to be sent to the Chapter Directors, just a synopsis or short explanation of each agenda item. Complying with this proposal would take a little adjustment of dates of when the agenda is finalized, I suspect, but could possibly be implemented for the BCA National Meet's Board Meeting this year. To allow for comments from attendees, there could be an agenda item for that activity, which could only be reported in the "after report", yet the main agenda items would be known prior to the meeting by somebody other than board members. If this information is already available somewhere, I am not aware of it (at this time). RE: BCA Forum Rep on the BCA Board I believe that many Board Members already read/monitor/participate in this BCA Forum. In that respect, I suspect we are already making our thoughts and orientations known to the BCA Board Members. The key thing is just how many of the Board Members are monitoring these forums (with respect to items that might appear on their current/future agendas) and if they acknowledge/consider OUR input on those issues with the same "weight" as somebody that might appear in person at a Board Meeting. One advantage to having a Forum Rep at the Board Meeting or sitting as a Member of the Board per se, would be that input from the Forum could/would be part of the minutes of the meeting (i.e, part of The Record). Perhaps instead of an elected member, it could be something in the same orientation of what I understand the Head Judge operates under, where he can vote on issues pertaining to his function. In that orientation, the Forum Rep could offer input (as already stated in the forums) for "The Record" and vote the majority orientation of the forum responses on these particular agenda items. In some respects, the BCA Board of Directors is already big enough as is. Adding another full-fledged member might make things a little too cumbersome to deal with. It could also result in more tie votes and longer meetings, possibly. I would hope that, as our ELECTED representatives, ALL of the BCA Board Members would be periodically monitoring these BCA Forums and considering (without adding their possible own orientations/spin into the mix) the comments of registered forum participants (whether these participants are or are not BCA members might be a side issue to consider) in making their respective votes on the issues before them. They would need to "vote their conscience" but ALSO be cognizant of what "the members" might think on these issues. We elect them to not only continue the proud traditions and orientations of the BCA, but to also lead the evoluational transition and progression of the BCA into the future. Therefore, whether a particular Board Member is designated to reasearch/monitor these forums or if a designated Representative of sorts is elected to as a sitting Forum Rep on the Board would be open for discussion. I can see where another sitting Board Member would be advantageous, but I can also see where it might overly complicate things from what they are currently. In the mean time, I'd be happy to see an advance agenda (either electronic or print) of the board meetings. There might be some lead time issues with getting this information to the general chapter memberships and then relaying comments (as necessary) to the Board Members, or just getting input (inside a specified time frame window before the meeting) from the Chapter Directors/officers. This would be in addition to the "after report" that we already get. It would also be nice to see the agendas for other related entities. For example, the Museum and Archives Foundation and the Buick Heritage group. Mainly as "awareness" issues than anything else. Thanks for your time and consideration. Willis Bell 20811 Director, North Texas Chapter BCA Newsletter Editor, North Texas Chapter BCA

DANG!!! It's been amusing seeing so many orientations voiced that are just mimicking what the media is saying about various vehicle brands. Or parroting back what was said about some of these cars over 20 years ago! Geez! Aren't we supposed to be enlightened by the Internet? Or has the Internet turned into a flame box for a few that are suspected to represent the masses? To me, a car name must have some pannache (sp) about it. It needs to sound somewhat dramatic when an announcer talks about it in a commercial or at a new car show. It needs to be classy, especially in the case of Buick and other similar orientation vehicles. If it successfully uses a prior name for a good car, that's great! By observation, Ford and Chrysler Group don't seem to have much trouble putting old names on current model vehicles (which are generally deserving of those names as they still have some of the "essence" of the prior models in them), yet GM just does not seem to have had the same successes in that area (for one reason or another). Might that be due to "car guys" not being in the decision making areas at GM? People that understand what really resonates with enthusiasts of particular marques of vehicles? Or has it been about forcing some agendas that management had to "sell" to the public? People used to talk down about Chrysler "badge engineering" vehicles (particularly Dodge and Plymouth vehicles on the same platform), but when the current GTO (if you care to check out the Holden website) is nothing more than a Holden with Pontiac identifiers on it, something seems a little out of whack to me. Even the hood on the current Monaro coupe is the SAME as the current GTO "scooped" hood! GEEZ! And this is what "globalization" means? Unfortunately, there seem to be very few people working in marketing GM vehicles that probably really understand what each GM brand meant in prior times. Or if they do, they put "their" spin on it (which might not be entirely accurate). Updating and modernizing is one thing, but the core values of each brand should remain the same over time so there is something to build on for future generations of buyers and enthusiasts. As much as I did not agree with the "merger" of Mercedes and Chrysler, I can say that the current Chrysler 300 (especially in the Touring and HEMI variations) still have the "spirit" and "essence" of what made the 300s of prior times great (letter cars or regular 300s, either one). Similar with Dodge, although I do NOT agree with their use of "Charger" for the sedan stablemate to the Chrysler 300, yet the Magnum is really neat. To me, the Ford Five Hundred has updated DNA of the Galaxie 500s of prior decades. And with the similar Mercury, have terriffic value at their price points. With their existing Mercury, Lincoln, and new Mustangs, Ford has a pretty dang good product mix. Oh, and then there's the new Fusion/Milan and Lincoln Zephyr. And we'll probably be seeing the same mix of cars for some years to come, but they'll probably make Ford a good deal of money in the process. Some people claim that the "car for every purse" orientation of the early 20th century is outmoded and wrong for modern times. They like to reference the difficulties that GM is having and reference them to that "old" orientation. Yet these same people fail to consider that Mercedes has a similar situation in their product mix too! Unless a car maker is going for a certain niche, they have to have models to fill all segments if they desire to grow and be competitive. Plus, as certain GM divisions used to be charged with bringing and testing certain designs and engineering advances, if they failed for some reason, it only reflected upon that one car line and not the whole corporation. When Mercedes was making their earlier model A-class cars that wanted to "roll over and play dead" everytime they tried to avoid some wildlife on the roads of their homeland, it reflected upon the ENTIRE Mercedes entity and reputation. So, "A car for every purse" (and related social demographics) makes sense now as it did then. There have been many marketing and design missteps of the prior 25 years that you'd think somebody would be using them for college marketing class case studies. Maybe all of the "more knowledgeable" people that used to work for car companies are now somewhere else (for whatever reason)? Or maybe the corporate accountants are still trying to cost-cut the corporation into prosperity rather than invest in building great products for better long term results and profits? Granted, the automotive industry is a complex animal, but it also seems that some of the "easy stuff" is made into terribly difficult matters to make happen. Perhaps the Harley Earl advertising for Buick didn't really hit home as there might not be anything currently built that really embodies the essence of what Mr. Earl did? Nothing in new models with which to lever that whole message against, perhaps? Or perhaps with everybody aiming for "new" or "conquest" customers, they forget how to keep their current customers and also make new ones desire existing vehicles? It's obvious that the Smale/Zarella "brand management" orientation did not work so I'd think it would be reasonable to get headed in a new direction as quickly as possible. Oh, that's right, to claim that era as a "marketing failure" would be admitting that somebody did something wrong. Well, sometimes you have to admit you screwed up and then fix the problem before it gets worse and "get on down the road" with things. So invest some time and send those "new recruits" at GM into the Heritage Center or the vehicle warehouses to research just what made each of the GM brands great in the 1950s and 1960s. Only when those new people (who should be the future of GM!) really understand these things (with respect to design and "how it was done") can GM bring really neat and distinctive products to market in ALL market segments. They don't have to "like" them, but if they just understand and can emulate some of these things into future vehicles, I suspect that would be a really big step forward in GM returning to the prominence in the car market that really needs to happen. Don't try to copy and adapt to what other brands/manufacturers are doing in all respects, but carve out a styling niche that clearly states that a GM vehicle is a GM vehicle and that a Chevrolet is a Chevrolet, a Buick is a Buick, for example. And then bring these new cars out en masse! Get the advertising buzz of old times going! These are some of the simple things--not rocket science--that used to work so well that have been deviated from in more modern times. The spirit of Harley Earl can live again! Just some thoughts, NTX5467

When I saw the pre-production LaCrosse and then (reluctantly, for general principles) got inside a Rainier at the new car show last year, I just went "WOW" when I settled into the Rainier's driver's seat. I was impressed, especially when compared to the Trailblazers and such. Kind of the same reaction I had when I first sat in a Roadmaster Estate Wagon, er rather sunk into the rear seat. What a way to go! The particular Rainier was black and had the graphite leather in it, but it was sooooo much nicer than I suspected it to be that I think anybody would be like one as a luxury vehicle. I concur with the "bean counter" dialogue. Spending another $15.00 in production cost that would make an extra $50.00 MSRP more than justified seems like a win-win situation for Buick AND General Motors. There's one local new car show coming later this week, but the Buick website does not list the Lucerne as scheduled to be there. Maybe we'll be surprised . . . Enjoy! NTX5467

Sometimes it's hard to "see" where some of these sellers are coming from--or trying to get to--with these "reserve" auctions. Perhaps they are using a "real estate" approach (where a relatively mundane property is overpriced so the ultimate buyer has the prestige and bragging rights to something "expensive")? If a complete and accurate (key and important word, "accurate"!) restoration is done on the vehicle, it would probably cost over $50K, depending on several factors. It might be a low production and desireable vehicle, but there's no real financial "justification" to restore it, other than the sentimental and historical value of the vehicle. Therefore, in that orientation, while many might consider purchasing it for the stated $2500.00 price, such a low price could also put it in the hands of a rank amateur "restorer" that would be in over their head before they turned a wrench. End result, a vehicle that deserved to be saved that was put somewhere it most probably did not belong. Many people might gather $2500.00 or even $5000.00 to purchase an old vehicle to restore over time, but many fewer could afford to spend $10K for something that is going to be sitting around for a while--even a bank CD would be a better investment. The first thing many of these people would do would be to fully disassemble the car and start buying parts, ignoring any historically significant assembly stamps, marks, paint daubs, build sheets, etc. in the process. Then, the money would probably "stop" so the whole car would be even more worthless in that condition than it would have fully assembled. Further decreasing any value it might have on the open market. Plus making it harder to sell in the process AND much more probable to end up in a salvage facility or in some "modified" configuration--two places that it should not be. I concur with the reality of the vehicle's ultimate price in #1 or #2 condition, but I also understand that somebody who could afford to pay $10K for it would most probably have other financial resources and expertise to correctly and accurately restore the vehicle to it's prior glory (which we all concur that it needs and deserves). Some ultimate owner that's not going to be immediately concerned with having $70K in a vehicle that the price guides claim is worth much less. An owner that considers the distinct possibility of "upside" (a Craig Jackson "word") in the vehicle's future price. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Reatta Man, from some of the cars I've seen at national level marque meets in OH, with cars from NY and similar, they DO know what a heated garage is and just what vehicle goes into it (the one being worked on). I realize y'all are talking about polishing stainless, but I need to note that should the moldings be stamped/extruded aluminum AND clear anodize coated -- it's a whole different ball of wax. Repairs might be similar, but to polish the molding you'll have to "burn" through the clear anodize coating with the buffer. By observation, those friends that have done that (in prior times before repro items might have been around) ended up saying "NEVER AGAIN!" But they did look quite nice when done. The time investment did not seem to justify the operation to them, rather than looking for better used items than they had. Enjoy! NTX5467

In getting the service estimate quotes, be sure to inquire if the "struts" they will be replacing are "cartridges" (for which the existing strut housing would need to be modified to accept the replacement cartridge) or for replacement of the complete strut assembly (as they came from the factory and what the replacement GM/ACDelco assembly would be). A cartridge is less expensive to purchase, but it will take added labor to change it out of the existing strut, so parts would be less but labor would be more. The strut assembly would be more parts cost and less labor and changed out more quickly. These would be the two main items to find out. My pref, not knowing anything about who would or could do the installation, would be with a dealership doing the whole job with factory parts. I might also consider using some aftermarket struts if they were the complete units. If I had a front end shop that I totally trusted and knew had done these things in the past, I might be comfortable getting the struts modified to accept replaceable cartridges, but how well that deal works can be determined by the level of expertise of the installer. Key words are "totally trusted", as in a known commodity rather than some generic chain store or other private shop. The other implication is that they'd stand behind their work (in the absence of a "written warranty"), even if a less experienced employee might have not done the "cut and thread" job correctly. Strut mounts are available "aftermarket" or from the dealership. A complete front end alignment would be required also. Be sure to find out what they propose to replace in the making of the estimate. Also be aware that many locales have statutes of how much variation from the actual repair cost the written estimates can be. Plus provisions for notifying the customer of any hidden issues as they might be discovered (which could change the ultimate total repair costs). As the required front end alignment would need to be done, that could also open up issues with other parts of the front suspension possibly needing attention or even bring light to some tire issues (upon inspection). In other words, the potential to "require" more work for the strut replacement job to "be right" does exist. If all you desire to be replaced is the struts, make sure that's all you approve to be done. Also make sure that replacing the struts will really fix the problem you suspect is needing to be fixed! In some cases, the allegedly "least expensive" alternative (non-dealerships) might end up being the most expensive before you pay the bill. It's your money and your time, just try to be an "informed shopper". Enjoy! NTX5467

Glad to know you've been doing something constructive and your wife knows where you are at night, Mike. Enjoy! NTX5467

I concur! I got my copy today. Great article and photography. Some other Buick items in there too. Enjoy! NTX5467

Two thoughts -- MAP (Mean Absolute Pressure) and MAF (Mass Air Flow) are NOT, repeat NOT the same thing or even remotely related or even look alike. MAP will have a vacuum line hooked to it and MAF will be somewhere in the air intake tract prior to the throttle body of the TPI system. What MAP might be sometimes confused with is a "Baro" sensor that is an altitude compensation "trimmer" for the fuel injection system--they look very similar, but have specific "tang" locations on their electrical connectorP. What some of the street rod people used to do in the earlier days of the 305/350 TBI units being used in vehicles that they didn't come in was to use the MAP sensor to run the computer (adjusting fuel mixture as the MAP would read intake manifold vacuum as a measure of load) and the fact the "Check Engine" light would normally be "on" did not matter as there was not one in the engine's new home. This was before the wiring harness and computer operatives of more recent times were in business so that everything could be hooked up more correctly. Regarding the Paxton units, as I recall, there should be an additional fuel plate somewhere between the throttle body and the TBI manifold. This is where the additional fuel "under load/boost" was added to the air flow. That way, no change of existing fuel injectors was necessary and also allowed the engine to run on EPA-certified fuel curves during normal operation. Your mention of voltage to the fuel pump/module might also be interesting. What we've seen on LOTS of later model Suburban/Tahoes is that if the fuel filter is not changed regularly (there's no GM-specified change interval, per se, that is in the factory maintenance schedule, that I've seen), it can make the fuel pump work harder to get the necessary pressure and flow past the fuel filter to the injector rails. When that happens, it puts too much current through the wiring in the fuel tank sending unit/pump mounting location and it can melt the wires going to the pump (in that area). It could probably do similar with a relay in the circuit too. I don't know what's in our "modern" RFG fuels, but it appears that "something" in certain, or many, brands can clog the inline fuel filter over time. Most of the C/K trucks that we put pump modules in were usually around 75,000 miles and the filter could not be "blown through". So you can imagine how hard that pump was working (usually with a somewhat loud "whine") to get 55psi and such through it. When that happens, one of the first "clues" is an extended crank time as it takes a minimum fuel pressure for the injectors to fire. With a fuel pressure gauge hooked to the injector rail, this is very easy to watch happen. In many cases like this, a new fuel filter might fix it, but also by that point in time, the wiring damage has begun to the fuel pump module/sending unit or the pump's output is not what it needs to be. No "band aid" fixes here. If the pump doesn't work, the car doesn't either; hopefully the cell phone will work. It was mentioned that vacuum leaks had been looked for in the vacuum lines and such, but what about the torque on the intake manifold bolts? And/or the integrity of the intake manifold gaskets? One thing we saw on the '87 TBI 454 pickups was that they'd throw MAP codes (or similar) after a particular time. The GM TSB called for relocating the MAP sensor higher than the production location. It seemed that condensate (fuel vapor-related) could settle out in the sensor, due to it's relative location from the TBI unit. When that happened, it didn't run right. A quick and simple fix was to raise it's relative elevation so that condensate would drain out of it rather than into it, with an appropriately longer vacuum hose going to it. Even with trouble codes and such, there is still a basic interaction and relationship that was present in pre-computer vehicle times. By observation, trouble codes can indicate problem areas or failed components, but sometimes "side issues" can cause codes to be thrown too. Then you get all of those codes "fixed" and more appear, but different ones. Everything is designed to work together in a synergistic manner, so when one part of "harmony" gets out of whack, it can relate to other things "failing" too. I'm not sure just how much flow tolerance is in the stock injectors, but I recall seeing a Hot Rod magazine "buildup" on a TPI Camaro in the later '80s. They replaced the stock 305TPI with something like a 377 short block and the existing TPI unit. They could not get it to idle at the right speed or mixture until they put a 350 chip in the computer. Might be that cumulatively, the added exh flow might be a similar issue of sorts. I know the "ideal" is that the oxy sensor will adjust for those things, but it all relates to just how much extra flow is in the stock injectors for such situations. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

With all due respect, the "drop of oil on the threads" recommendation was stated many years ago in service literature. Plus, all SAE torque values are (something else I read years ago and then in other places too, like a factory service manual) are for "lightly oiled threads" in order that the fasterns will be pulled down smoothly instead of the torque reading being incorrect due to additional friction between the dry threads. I have been using a drop of motor oil from the dipstick on spark plug threads since I got my first ratchet and spark plug socket in the middle 1960s. It does tend to burn off with time, but it does keep the rust down and make the plugs much easier to remove (when that time comes)-- just have to break them loose and then they come out with finger turning. Just my experiences. BTW, I've always used high quality motor oil too. By the same token, I've seen plugs that came out "with a fight" when they did not have the drop of oil put on them when they were installed. No fun! The reason I mentioned anti-seize was for those that have aluminum cylinder heads instead of cast iron. Enjoy! NTX5467

No "big, fancy cars" with a Pontiac name? Look at what they had in 1957 and thereabouts!!! Even chrome bows in the headliner, plus wildly multi-colored interior color schemes. And they were bigger than a Chevrolet too. Dave's correct about the "user obtained" fuel economy. Yet even with the stated EPA figures, with the Buick 3800 V-6, the lowest EPA highway figures I recall seeing were on the Regal GS (with the supercharged 3800) was 27mpg Highway. Typically, in most any other GM car, they were usually 29-30mpg Highway. It'll only take a stroll across a non-GM new car lot to see a sea of imports and other domestic vehicles that can't match that. Yet there seems to be a large body of people that perceive the EPA figures to be inaccurate, even as they've been factored down in more recent times. In prior times, when Buicks were much larger vehicles, they were not universally known for their fuel economy and that perception seems to continue with the current downsized "large" cars. I do feel that fuel economy is and can still be a strong selling point. Where are the USAC-sanctioned tests when you need them???? It was only a few years ago that Pontiac had the SSEi Bonneville running around a race course with a fwd Chrysler 300 and a few others. Performance, handling, and economy were all things the Bonneville beat the others in--even the fwd Chrysler with 13 more horsepower. But where's the advertising for that car (the Bonneville) been lately? Probably superceded by the GTO and G6 commercials??? And we all know what stellar successes those cars have been! Just some thoughts, NTX5467

GMAC, like other finance companies, is a multi-faceted organization. They sell car insurance, vehicle extended warranties, finance homes (for about 10 years now!), in addition to the car loans we all have knowledge of. Only part of "the business" has been or is for sale, but not the automotive finance operations. NTX5467

I bet that "leather" really is "leatherette"-style vinyl. As vinyl interiors have seemed to vanish from the modern automotive landscape, anything that's not cloth might be considered "leather" for various reasons. Does sound like a good deal, provided it's not going to need all of the rubber replaced and such. Or other "inactivity related" repairs. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

I concur, heat range equivalents and name brand quality in spark plugs make for a good product. I have observed that some brands last better in particular engines than other brands might -- by observation over the years. Key thing to me is "OEM-spec quality", in any spark plug. Be sure to put a drop of engine oil or some sort of anti-seize (depending on whether the heads are cast iron or aluminum) on the threads when you put the new ones in, plus verifying the gaps are all the same and such. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

GMPARTSMAN, I was thinking the SAME THING after I read the articles on detnews.com today. Of course, the press release about two weeks ago that the demise of the Bonneville was being "considered", kind of set the stage for this whole deal. I went back and doublechecked the years for the downsized Bonneville. In 1981, the Bonneville and Catalina were both B-body cars, with the LeMans and Grand Prix being on the intermediate G-car chassis. The next year, 1982, the Bonneville went down to the G-car chassis and became basically the 4-door counterpart to the 2-dr Grand Prix. At that time, Bonnevilles included 4-drs and wagons. Sales bombed bigtime, and that trend was noticed soon enough that for 1983, the Parisienne (sp) became "the full size Pontiac" until about '87, when the H-body fwd Bonneville appeared. Key point -- I strongly suspect that those responsible for this "tough management decision" in 2005 were paying attention to what happened in 1981 (for various reasons). Hence, they don't know what a mistake they might be making! And how many times have we heard the dialogue about "declining sales in the ________ market segment" as justification for pulling the plug on a particular model??? Also, just how much advertising has anybody noticed in recent history extolling the virtures of the current Bonneville? It is a vastly improved car from the prior version, and to me, "vastly" is an understatement. In the other prior press release, it noted that they expected Lucerne production to take the place of the lost Bonneville production. That would indicate that Hammtramck will now be a plant with two instead of three vehicles in it. I also saw somewhere that LeSabre production will continue for a while after the Lucerne comes out. With all due respect, I suspect they might be putting a little too much emphasis on the success of the Lucerne just yet. That it will step right into the shoes left by the LeSabre and Park Avenue in one feld swoop? I concur, those approx 30,000 customers might just end up at Chrysler or Volvo dealerships if they can't have a new Bonneville. As mentioned, just like happened when Olds went away. I still see signs that GM is still trying to "cost cut it's way to prosperity" at the expense of market coverage. Now . . . for another scenario. We know that Pontiac cars are now leaning toward "G" nomenclatures. G4 is a Cobalt-type Pontiac in other markets. The G6 is in the former Grand Am market. The "G"rand Prix and "G"TO hit the next size up. So that would tend to indicate a "G8" (former Pontiac concept car a few years ago?) version of the new platform that is under the Lucerne. Other than the exterior sheet metal and interior items, such a vehicle could have been developed "under the radar" along with the Lucerne (as I suspect the same development team could have done them both concurrently). As the announcement of the end of Bonneville production seems to have come a little suddenly, it could be that although the Bonneville is being ended, it could be being replaced by a similarly updated vehicle called G8? When I saw how pricey the current Bonnevilles could be, I suspect that GM might be making some errors of judgment to have as much price overlap -- NOT model overlap!! -- among their brands as they do. To me, the "best" Pontiac should not be any more than about $36K, max, yet I found some in stock at dealers today for like $39600 bottom line MSRP window sticker. That's before any rebates and such too. Well inside of LeSabre price territory and closing in on Park Avenue! Best way to make a car a better vallue on the used car lot is to announce it's demise . . . Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Thanks for the pic! Much better reproduction than on "the other site". NTX5467

I HOPE it's not in the same price point as the SLS/STS (whatever)!!! But then I went into the Pontiac website and discovered that a fully loaded Bonneville GXP was within sneezing distance to $40K!!!!! Yikes!!!! There's a good bit of info on the whys and such on the 6-speed automatic in the GMPowertrain website. Or at least it was there last week. Kind of interesting, but it also has a "generic" final drive ratio orientation too, if I read it correctly. I thought we got along just fine with 3-speed automatics and then the current 4-speed automatics with electronic controls. And now we've got to have SIX??? But then I remember when 16" wheels were 3/4 ton pickup truck items too. Enjoy! NTX5467