NTX5467

The only tease is the "countdown clock" on the Buick website. There's also a place to sign up for information on the Lucerne via email. Until the public unveiling, the Lucerne probably will not be on the Buick website as it isn't "production" yet. Enjoy! NTX5467

With all due respect, I don't think you can get there from here . . . As you might know, there's not much room in those cars to do what you are proposing. Adding two speakers to the rear package tray might be easy enough to finesse and still look reasonably "factory", but adding the front speakers would require some cutting and such, I suspect. You might see what is behind the kick panels and perhaps there's enough room to do something in that area (which is where, on other GM cars, that something like 4x6s were used with the first FM Multiplex radios in the middle '60s or 8-track tape players). Putting them "loose" in the cowl vent area will not have sufficient baffling for the smaller speakers to produce enough bass response to what they otherwise could do. Not to mention not being able to use the vents themselves. I also highly suspect that an upgrade in the generator/alternator area will be needed too. Probably something at least like 60amps, if I was guessing. Satellite radio is a neat deal, but the worst thing about it to me is the "antenna" that must be used. YUK! The other thing is that you're probably going to need some sort of better radio to replace the AM unit--period. Something to run those four speakers. I don't think those things are part of the satellite radio adapter packages! Finding a GM/Delco radio in a FM stereo model to fit your dash without cutting or hacking would be a chore, so adding a "hidden audio" unit in the glove box would be an option. Check out some of the Chevy and Ford hobby magazines for leads in that respect. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

If you only have "3" forward gears, then it's most probably the THM200 trans. I don't think it has a vac modulator as other GM automatics do, as it was pretty much a "basic" trans in design. I could be wrong on the modulator issue, though. Low gear should be something like 2.75 instead of 2.52 in the THM 350. The a/c doors should work much faster than you describe. Other than the vac selector valve on the a/c control in the instrument panel, the vac source would be the reservoir can under the hood, usually a spherical unit. From there, the next item in line could be a check valve near the power brake booster, where the a/c vac source tees off of the vac check valve going to the cruise control. Kind of a funny looking item, but also prone to cracking where the a/c line hooks on. Of course, you could always find a good manifold vacuum source nearer the manifold, yet the use of the check valve in the source line could help with the generally low manifold vac levels during acceleration periods. The tubes in the carb base that the rubber lines hook to should be tight in their bores. They were always pressed in, but using some epoxy to hold them in might be a good thing to do. Putting the trans in "2" for normal driving might not help anything as it will not change anything other than not going into 3rd gear. One thing you might consider is possibly adjusting the trans linkage at the carb for a little more preload in the adjustment. That would basically tell the trans that there is more throttle in the motor than there actually is, so that it would delay the upshifts a little bit. If the trans upshifts too soon, the engine rpm will drop too low in the next gear. Hence, more throttle and less acceleration and poor fuel economy. To check this out, manually shift the trans from 1st to 2nd to 3rd about 5mph higher than it normally would by itself. If you can use less throttle input to run faster, this minor adjustment might be all that's needed, other than the attention to normal maintenance items. A little tweaking usually will not hurt anything, but don't vary much from the factory adjustment in this respect. The adjustment is usually in the block on the cable where it goes into the mounting bracket. As for spark plugs, you could do a lot worse than use some OEM spec ACDelco plugs of the original "normal" type. Platinums/Iridiums (the current production 3800s come with Iridium ACDelcos in them) will last longer and cost not that much more money. Your judgment call. Be sure to check the condition of the other ignition items too. In some respects, you might be better off finding a competent entity to rebuild the carb you have. Buying a "generic" reman unit is just that--generic. Getting one that is an exact replacement for your existing carb is the best way to do things, but is usually more costly. None of these are going to be "inexpensive", though. Even with the restrictors in their vac hose connection tubes, the vac breaks on the carb should pull in as the engine is started and stay there. In some cases, you can override them by pulling them back out, but they should still return to their "with vacuum" position. Perhaps the internal diaphrams are having age-related issues? Maybe when you follow all of these "details" to their completion, things will be a little bit better. If not, then you at least know what's been changed and when. Enjoy! NTX5467

If the battery gets disconnected for any reason, there's ONE highly siginficant thing that can happen to cause "grief" and such. If the factory radio has "THEFTLOCK" on the front faceplate somewhere, ANY time the power to it (even if it's turned off) will cause the radio's logic module to "think" it's been stolen. When this happens, the Theftlock feature kicks in and locks the radio so that it will not work until the proper code is entered to make it work again. On the later models, you have to have the dealership people get the code and perform the "unlock" function. On the earlier models, they came with a static cling label on the faceplate of what the "unlock" code was. This let the make ready people make it work for the customer. Sometimes, these codes were in the factory service manuals, but with all of the current radio models, I think they now have to call Tech Assistance to get the code. Also on the earlier models, the owner had the option of entering another code of their own to replace the factory code. Kind of like getting a moderator-generated password to an Internet Forum, using that password to gain access to the forum, and then putting your own password into the system for your own login operations. This can sound like a good idea, which it CAN be, except . . . if you sell the car and don't pass on the code or the base code is also not stored in the radio's logic module, it can make the radio unuseable (as it's supposed to do) if the battery should ever be disconnected for any reason. I'm not sure about this particular scenario, though. To put your own code into the radio, there should be a section in the owner's manual covering that subject--if it's a Theftlock radio. I know the mentioned features were in the earlier ones, but I haven't looked about them lately. In any event, it's a little more involved than just resetting the radio stations and clock if the battery is disconnected. One way to possibly get around this whole deal is to have an auxiliary power source to hook to the battery cables as the existing battery is disconnected, replaced, and reconnected. In that manner, the vehicle would "see" a constant power supply to the various computers and such. Either another fully charged car battery or possibly a motorcycle battery. I'm not sure about the ECM memory issues with disconnected batteries and such, but I suspect it's all hidden somewhere in the factory service literature or related training information for the technicians. It used to be that disconnecting the battery for a specified period of time would erase the ECM codes (now done much more easily with a scan tool!), but I'm not completely sure about the newest models. Proceed at your own risk. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

"Dated" styling and "contemporary styling" are in the eyes of the beholder. A point of reference issue--at least to me. More of the PA items have changed other than just the grille, over it's current life span. Interior and exterior colors have changed (just as the color availability on the current T-bird have, and other cars have with respect to particular year model ranges) as has the instrument panel gauge cluster (styling of the gauge faces in particular). How much is in the budget for "refreshes" and when they happen is put into the master plan budget for the car when it's approved for production. None of these things happen "by chance" or "on the spur of the moment". Yet some things can be delayed for various reasons too. ALSO consider that if somebody that had not seen a PA before and has not had it drilled into their head about how "dated" the vehicle is could well consider it to be fully "fresh" and contemporary. Now, would somebody ALSO consider just how long many imports have used platforms that were only recently replaced or upgraded? THAT's something that does not seem to receive nearly as much press as similar issues with regard to North American brands, by observation. Nor how old some of the import engine designs are either. Let's see . . . the New Altima was all new . . . then came the "New Maxima" a year later with a new platform for it . . . yet the "New G-series" Infinity was on the same platform, but not the "New Maxima" platform per se? And what about light duty truck chassis platforms? It used to be the norm for them to be used at least 10 full model years. The new in '73 GM truck chassis lasted until the end of the '91 model year (in Suburban/Tahoe configurations) and the end of the '87 model year in normal C/K/R/V pickup truck configurations. No body really started calling them "dated" until there was something else to compare them too in that respect as Ford was doing similar things also. Yet when that new Dodge Ram came out at the Detroit Auto Show in '92 or so, things changed . . . Perhaps the only reason the PA might be considered "dated" or "out of style" is that it's still "big" when compared to the other cars in the picture list? That it STILL embodies "American Luxury" instead of an adapatation of some Euro style that is reasonably dull in comparison? That it has a highly efficient engine that will get better fuel economy than many, if not all, of the other vehicles pictured? That it will STILL seat six adults in comfort? With a trunk big enough for the classic (or used to be) American Summer Vacation? That you can get into the rear seat with reasonable ease if your knees weren't working as good as they might and have room once you got back there? Or that the grille is kind of a throw-back to when many American manufacturers were attempting to emulate the earlier Mercedes-Benz grille shapes in some way (although the current Mercedes grilles look like something from a Hyundai without the "H" in the middle)? Or that it harkens back to when ALL Buicks had CURVES on their bodies instead of sharp creases (yet there were some very beautiful Buicks in the middle 1960s time frame with sharp creases on their sheet metal)? Or the fact that it takes only 4.5 quarts of oil for an oil and filter change? The other thing is, at least to me, all of the other cars in the picture list seem to have a somewhat "generic late model" look to them. Take out the grilles and other identification and THEN guess which one's which. There's no real defining character in them (other than possibly the 300)--and GM has seemed to be bound and determined to follow that lead! By that definition, the PA would not "fit the mold" and would therefore become "distinctive and recognizable" for the Buick that it is. With respect to the Chrysler 300, I saw one a while back with a billet grille in it. Made it look really dull and like a bloated Audi. Maybe it was because it was white in color? It always amazes me that many harp on the age of the Buick V-6 engine and that it's not a "cam-in-head" design. Yet I haven't heard any similar things about Corvette or Viper engines. Doesn't seem to be a stampeed to the Cadillac XLR just because it has 4 camshafts and the Corvette only has one either. Just some thoughts. Respectfully, NTX5467

Check the engine mounts for deterioration. It might be a low mileage car, but rubber ages whether the vehicle is running down the road or not. The way the front wheel drive powertrain (engine and trans) are mounted, they can have torque reactions in forward and reverse gears, which are opposite torque reactions. There usually are some additional "torque struts" to limit the degree of those torque reactions and that could well be the problem area--if the mounts are set up that way on that car. Suspension struts typically don't make noise just in "R". Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Bryan, it might be the "stock answer", but it's also accurate. It takes a chapter (or group thereof) to decide they want to host a BCA National Event and then "make it happen" (if the bid is accepted). A great deal of planning is involved, but it's NOT impossible to make happen either. I understand the reason for desiring national meet hosts to have "experience", but the perceived orientation and/or signals that it takes "seasoned veterans" and larger host chapters to be able to host meets might be receiving a little too much emphasis in some respects. As in sending the message that if you haven't done at least a successful BCA regional event in the past, the chapter is automatically disqualified from serious consideration for a national event (by observation, it seems that "other experience" with non-BCA events is not considered, typically). There are many ways to define "successful". Some regional meets are also as large as some national meets have been too. Many discussion points here! Yet regardless of how many issues and side issues and sub issues there might be, it still takes a chapter (or several chapters in a particular region) to plan and submit a bid to the BCA National Board before ANY BCA National Meet can happen. There are also many "seasoned veterans" in a good number of BCA Chapters (that have been involved in successful BCA National Meets in the past) that can help and mentor those considering submitting a BCA National Meet bid. That "First Step" can be a big one, but not so big that many can't make it if they try. Of course, every National Meet attendee and participant want the best possible show for their money. That means a nice place with nice (and affordable!) accomodations with pretty nice banquet facilities, a nice car show and swap meet areas (500 cars, maybe?), and some neat places to tour or visit. Being at a major highway crossroads is good too, but not always necessary. Even with all of those things going for it, the meet location must still be planned out and adequately staffed "to expectations" of the participants for a smooooooth running event. But back to your original comment, there's probably no reason that a BCA National Meet could not be hosted there if it's sufficient for the CLC. Each national car club group has their own criteria for meet venue issues, though, which could be an important issue to consider. Every car club, local or regional or national, does things just a little differently from other similar groups. DO go to the CLC event and see what you think of it, though, and enjoy it as much as you can. Take plenty of film (or memory cards) too! Enjoy! NTX5467

The wire wheels might be a little much, but it did sell for $27K at "No Reserve". Then a similarly colored '59 Olds 98 Holiday 2-dr went through for $30K to the same buyer. He was happy! Both cars were very nice indeed! At least the wire wheels had the three-color insert on the spinners. Seems like it even had some grocery items in the cargo area when it went through the auction. Brock Yates and the other guys were talking about how much fun it was, as kids, when they'd take a trip in a wagon like that and get in the back as far away from their parents as they could. Enjoy! NTX5467

It USED to be great fun and anticipation to see ALL of the new car stuff in the major metro papers back when ALL of the new cars came out in the fall--usually in about a 2 week time span!!!! The cars draped with white fabric to keep them "covered up" prior to the official show date (but you could usually find some on the storage lot behind the dealership) were a neat tease back then, but might not work too well in more modern times. Some of the cars were even shipped on the transports that way. Talk about building excitement about that whole time back then!!! It was all a really fun game back then, not to mention checking out each and every newsstand for magazines with "advance information" or "spy shots" of the new cars. The "Annual New Car Issue" of many magazines was just that. Those were, rather ARE, some great memories! And when the '64 Mustang hit in the middle of the '64 model year, that was really something special again. I still go to the new car shows each year (haven't missed many!). It's still neat to check out what's out and see the concepts and such (even if they are "old" ones). Also neat to watch and listen to the people as they take on over the new cars too. Luckily, there's one in Fort Worth and another one in Dallas (which is much larger) in about a two month time span each year. Lots of FUN and somewhat "cheap entertainment". Not to mention the special posters and such that are usually around each year!!! Enjoy! NTX5467

Sounds like a combination of issues . . . some of which are somewhat "common" with Q-Jets in general. Could be an accel pump issue, but if you pump it and it "helps", it could also be the "power piston" in the carb (which moves the primary metering rods up and down, moving against a calibrated coil spring under it that is the basic phasing of when the metering rods let "power" or "economy" mixtures happen) is stuck in the "down" or "economy" position. Could also be that the spring has broken and it's in the down position all of the time. A quick way to check is to put a large blade screwdriver gently down through the interior bowl vent tube (in the middle, in front of the primary barrels) and then load the engine against the foot brake. More throttle = less manifold vacuum = screwdriver moves upward. Less throttle = more manifold vacuum = screwdriver moves down from its low vac position. If no movement, then the power piston is not moving as it should or the screwdriver is not sitting on the valve--or it's an electronic carb (which should have a throttle position sensor on it). There were also some "dual capacity accelerator pumps" on several years of QJets back then. Seems like the "added capacity" was used via some sort of electric switch for cold start driveability situations. It takes a different pump plunger than the regular QJet accel pump, if I recall correctly. If it's been that way for a good while, you might need to take the air horn (top of the carb off, remembering to "deal with" the roll pin that holds the accel pump pivot rod in the correct manner). You can buy a complete carb kit or possibly still get the correct air horn gasket by itself via GMParts. There is a plastic retainer that keeps the power piston in its bore. It should move freely up and down. If not, then some carb cleaner should do the trick AND make sure the spring that should be under it is still there and in one piece. If it is an electronic metering rod carb, there will be a solenoid that runs the metering rods up and down instead of the power piston working against spring/vacuum pressures. When they fail, you'll probably see some little bits of orange silicone-looking items in the float bowl. They replace as an assembly. As for the secondaries, there's a plastic cam that is on the secondary air valve shaft, that raises the metering rods for the secondaries as they open. If it's worn, the metering rods don't move upward (richer) as the secondary air valves open. A somewhat common thing that you might find in the aftermarket carb parts sources or the GM Parts database (some years list it and others don't, but they all "fit"). The vacuum breaks on the QJ have several functions, other than just opening the choke butterfly. The front one also has a small bleed hole in the supply tube that delays/modulates the opening rate of the secondaries, in addition to the air valve spring tension adjustment. The secondary vac break could have several assist functions. I think they are usually an additional way to get the choke off quicker for better cold start emissions and such, but it could vary from year to year and carline to carline. Also be sure to check the various TVS (thermal vacuum switches) on the engine. If they malfunction or let vac get to where it's supposed to be when it's not supposed to be there, it could "unbalance" things. The other thing to consider is that even that "light" car could approach 3800 lbs with a passenger or two. Add in the typically 2.41 rear axle ratio (even with the small diameter tires that came on them) and the low stall "tight" torque converters from back then, and it's not a very "performance oriented" setup. But if what power is there is "responsive power", that can help general driveability feel more than raw power would (by observation). I concur that it should run pretty decent, but it's not a "hot rod" in the classic sense of the word. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

I concur, Adam. If the SBC 383 is making 500 horsepower, that means the related torque figure is probably at something like 5000rpm instead of the 3000rpm range that makes for a good street motor with "normal" rear axle gears. I'd bet that with a more modern cam profile and some head clean-up work, the Buick Nailhead would make a much better street engine than ANY SBC variation--just my orientation. It's low end torque that cooks the tires and gets things moving from idle with stock-type torque converters. There are some Nailhead engine websites out there, if you desire to look. There's also many neat engine spec/design articles in the KB/Silvolite piston website too. Lots of things to read and play with during the colder winter weather!!!! If the vehicle had an Olds engine in it, and it was running and driving, that means that in order to use the SBC, you'll also need an appropriate SBC bolt pattern transmission (unless you're lucky enough to have a trans with the "multi-fit" bolt pattern). Just because you can put some Chevy-spec engine (frame standoff brackets) mounts onto the existing crossmember does NOT mean it will be an easy thing to do by the time ALL aspects of the changeover are considered. Frame mounts, a repro wiring harness for a Chevy A-body, and other things might bolt in too, but where you end up might also be determined by just how "modified" the vehicle was to get the Olds engine into it. Remember too, the closer to stock configuration a vehicle is, the more it'll ultimtely be worth when it might be time to sell it. Not to mention that not everyone wants a vehicle with "unknown" or "non-production" drivetrain swap items, but that's a variable situation too. A vehicle with an "as produced" drivetrain (or very similar) might also stand a better chance of survival in the future, due to the type of buyer that might tolerate such a modified situation. Your money, your time, your car . . . Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Due to the particular type of exterior vinyl and foam underlayment, there might not be any reliable way to get the new repair material to really bond to the existing materials. A little too much "plastic" and not enough "vinyl"? Once the deterioration/splitting starts, there's no stopping it, by observation. Even SuperGlue won't stick to it, if it's what I think it is. Maybe it could be redone by Just Dashes? I found some of the later model 77+ arm rest items on www.topsonline.com. That website has many things I didn't know existed in the aftermarket/replacement realm of interior trim items for newer vehicles. They also have an installer list so perhaps you could talk to them for other leads? One option might be to find some expandable foam, fill in the cracked areas, and then recover the existing arm rest with expandable vinyl upholstery material? But if the repair materials might not stick to the existing part, then getting the new vinyl overlay to fit and stretch and work might be marginal also. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Other than 1981 sales literature, try "The Standard Book of Buick". Each year is detailed with respect to options, basic specs, etc. NONE of the power figures were worth "writing home about" back then. I don't believe the turbo 3.8L V-6 even broke 200 horsepower, but I could be wrong. Enjoy! NTX5467

Marketing decisions driven solely by accounting orientations is -- and has NOT ever been proven to really work at GM -- not the way to rebuild or "refurbish" GM. As one media writer opined a few months back, "You can't cost cut your way to prosperity." By selling off ALL (now that the locomotive division is going to be sold) of GM's former "side interests" (some with some great brand equity at the time, but perhaps poorly run, were not generating "their potential" in acceptable revenues, or had to be sold to satisfy US Government operatives), they've generated money to keep things going as they had been. But at some point in time, the "face the music" situation of starting to focus on great products again will be necessary--as the "focus on the core business of building vehicles" has once again been invoked. I suspect that much of where GM is today is the result of "cost savings" orientations. Some functions, such as powertrain items, would naturally evolve into a combined functional group, plus other administrative activities that were previously separate and unique for each "division", but when you get to where a Chevy Impala SS and Pontiac Grand Prix GTP and Buick Regal GS can all cost to less than about $100.00 (total spread!) of each other, it can tend to diminish the brand divisions that have been the hallmark of GM and "made things work". Such things also tend to lead the customer to the "They're all the same" orientations, "so why buy one over the other?" There's always been "brand overlap" in GM or Ford or Chrysler, with respect to the lower division having "totally equipment loaded" lower line vehicles that always "invaded" the price territory of the higher level brands, but higher level models that would have had lower levels of available equipment--but the higher level brand was always more prestigious to own and have dealer relations with. A loaded '65 Caprice would cost similar to a Pontiac Catalina, Buick LeSabre, or Olds Delta 88 of the same year, but it became a purchase decision (back then) of buying the "fancy" Chevrolet or the Pontiac or Buick or Olds with roll-up windows and manual seats (for example) rather than the "loaded" Chevrolet. OR if the higher line brand dealerships had better "purchase and ownership experiences" than what the mass-market Chevrolet dealer might have. In those earlier times, it seems that each GM division had definite customer demographics they played to. "A vehicle for every purse". That meant and recognized that a Chevy customer might not (usually) be a Pontiac customer or Buick or Olds customer OR Cadillac customer. Chevy was the entry level line and the others higher level lines were the "aspirational" lines that said Chevy customer might desire to move up to in later life and better financial standings. But as each GM division (except Cadillac at that time) moved toward "full line offerings", starting with the "compact" cars in '60 and then the "intermediate" cars in '64, the fact that a Chevy customer might not desire to migrate upward was recognized. That they were happy with a Chevrolet product and their dealership, for example. As more of these "same" products came to share plants with other divisional siblings, the orientation that each one would "cost the same to build" was probably born. Similar labor times to make similar vehicles, but similar vehicles with different levels of content (fancier interiors, better trim, etc.). Who would have ever suspected that Chevrolets and Cadillacs would EVER share a common assembly line? Somewhere, deep inside the organization that is GM, I suspect that there have been financial people that secretly gnashed their teeth over the fact that each GM division had so many "different and unique" products and engines and transmissions whereas Chrysler and Ford got by with markedly less variations (and less relative investment for similar results). Then the "Why can't we do that?" question came down and the rest is history. GM might be a huge corporation, but for all of the cost cutting and "reductions/consolidations" that they've done, you would think they'd have enough reserve resources to fund anything they needed to to build great products in the USA and abroad. I'll stop there . . . On the other hand, marketing and design activities are similar to legislative items--you can legislate anything, but if you don't fully fund it, the great ideas never really get implemented to the level of execution they might need to be. Being frugal and efficient is one thing . . . Being open about future product declines or additions is a seemingly good thing for vehicle manufacturers, BUT it can also lead to a "self-fulfilling prophecy" situation too. As mentioned, sometimes these "leaks" or "test the waters" press releases can do much more harm than good -- and begin the orchestration of declining sales for the particular vehicles (some deserved, many not) and their resulting demise. Doesn't seem to really matter if the vehicle model name has great brand equity or not, in many cases. Building brand equity and model recognition in the marketplace takes time and effective efforts by marketing and design operatives. Yet when, for example, a new "Whiz Bang" takes the place of a "Reliable and Profitable" model with a new name in the same market segment, it can send signals that the earlier R/P was not any good as the new "Whiz Bang" will be better. So more money is spent to reinforce the new model's credibility and further refinement to existing customers. Many marketing types have many varied orientations on that issue, it seems. Many like to look at the unit sales to draw conclusions about "storm clouds", but it might be better to look at the market share of the particular segment. Units sold are important to keep plants running, but if the whole market segment is "down" or "up", then how the individual brand in that total market segment performs, relatively, would be more important. Labor costs, being what they are, will be there whether the plant is running or now. The "units sold" orientation was the agenda that many media types were using to try to get Ford operatives to admit that Mercury would be discontinued a few years ago. Yet if a brand or model is profitable at lower levels of production rather than peak production numbers (i.e., having a lower "break even" point), then profits can result at lower production volumes. At this point in time, GM can't really afford to lose another brand--for any reason. The fact that when GM's total sales declined after the announcement of the then-future demise of Olds, it seems that that year's sales were down by the amount of the prior year's amount of Oldsmobile sales. Similar at Chrysler when Plymouth was finally buried. Those sales just did not blend over into the sister brands, but most probably went to the imports or Ford. Putting large, black numbers on the bottom of financial reports are one thing, but when they come at the expense of product investments, it goes back to the previous observation regarding cost cutting and financial prosperity. Perhaps if GM would reveal some future product plan investments to the public (i.e., how much Buick is slated for, how much Pontiac is slated for) and how they will be allocated and for what purposes (i.e., new products, plant upgrades) might go a long way toward erasing the possible perception that all product investment is more planned than "band aid fixes". We NEED some positive signals that GM is really as financially powerful as we would like to presume it is and should be. Maybe a consolidated press release that would get prominent placement in newspapers and such--not just in trade publications? Drive some sales with public confidence rather than rebates, maybe? Just how many "financial analysts" really drive GM products?????? Just some thoughts, NTX5467

From what I read a while back, the REAL winner from the Oldsmobile departure was not Pontiac or Buick, but KIA. Many Olds dealers had picked up Kia as a second line before Olds went away. The loyal buyers stayed with their stand-alone Olds dealer instead of migrating to another GM brand, even though there might have been some rebates to help keep them in a GM vehicle. When many of the loyal Olds Delta 88 customers (which had a split bench seat) went looking for another Delta 88, they only found Auroras and Intrigues with bucket seats. I highly suspect those customers either kept their existing Oldsmobile Delta 88s a little longer or went over to Mercury (where they could still get a bench style front seat and a vehicle of the same general orientation as Olds in prior times). These are the same "older" customers that many people don't seem to want anymore, the same customers that in earlier times would have already been driving Buicks or Pontiacs IF that was what they wanted. Basically, they were "run out of town" by a GM management orientation that, seemingly, Olds needed a younger or more "international" flavor than a split bench front seat might offer--no option for a split bench either. Not surprising that their loyalties stayed with the dealer than with the corporation that didn't want their business. When I read that GM press release on another website, it made me wonder just HOW Grand Prix customers and Bonneville customers were the same people. It kind of sounded like they were considered to be the "same size" too! It strikes me as being a "justification" for moving the Bonneville more into the Chrysler 300 size of vehicle instead of capitalizing on their larger size (which they have now). Or possibly a smaller car that can be sold for more money. I remember the time that Pontiac put the Bonneville model on a smaller-than-it-was platform. When they put it on the Malibu-size platform in the early '80s, as if they were going to lead the way for everyone to have smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles. Funny thing . . . the other GM divisions did not follow and it was not long before the Pontiac Parisenne found new owners in the USA as a Bonneville replacement (it was really a Chevy Caprice with different grilles, better interiors, and other Pontiac-specific trim items). It was not until several years later when the Bonneville returned. Now that the "consideration" of discontinuing the Bonneville has hit the newspapers, you can probably expect sales of that car to start shrinking--a self-fulfilling prophecy orchestrated by some obviously progressive operative that makes a lot of money. With falling sales, that would then be further justification to "change" or "discontinue" it. The other side of the situation is a new "G-series" Pontiac model, that would be the smaller car to ATTEMPT to fill the gaps left by the lack of a "large" Pontiac and the upgraded Grand Prix situation. And in the mean time, more SUVs, Crossover SUVs, etc. with a Pontiac nameplate! Sorry if I seem a little negative, but there have been so many sub-optimal marketing and promotion decisions made by GM operatives in the past 2 decades to keep college students occupied doing case studies of "what went wrong and why" for many years! Combine that with delayed new product during that same time frame (for whatever reasons) and we end up with the "situation" that GM's trying to get out of in current times. The unfortunate situation is that there seems to be no "continuous improvement feedback mode loop" to consider what mistakes might have been made and why, with the ultimate goal of not doing the same things again. I know that GM North America can design AND build world class vehicles (in architecture and content) in North America without having to bring over or adapt designs from other GM operations. But it also seems that GM has been building some really neat vehicles in their other locations (i.e., Australia, Europe), yet it seems that when those vehicles have been "adapted" to USA use, "things" happen for one reason or another (at least in the pre-CTS and pre-current Malibu days). In one respect, the Monaro coupe being rebadged as a "GTO" in North America is good and bad at the same time. It's one thing to export a USA vehicle to Europe and call it another brand name (i.e., Chevy Alero), but to do the reverse just seems a little "out of whack" to me--considering that we are supposed to be a premier automotive manufacturing nation. In the mean time, I'm still waiting for something that's not going to happen in the near future--GM realizing that if it does not get back into several key markets that they've basically handed over to Ford and others, that things are not going to be much better than they presently are. Realizing that really great products are the way to corporate profits and quarterly dividends rather than cutting models and selections thereof. Putting an adaptation of the LaCross show car into production to replace the existing Park Avenue would have been a great move. A car with definite style, definite heritage, and would definitely turn heads on the road. Instead, we're going to get an "improved" LeSabre with a new name. And we all know how many times that Harold might have been asked when the Blackhawk was going to be built. Again, sorry for the negative vibes on this subject . . . and seeming impatient. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Many state inspection stations have apparatus to check the gas caps for proper vapor release functions. In Texas (and probably other states), it's part of the state emissions check for vehicle inspection. Still, the checking machine has to be properly calibrated to work right. There's a "smoke test" that can be done by the dealer to check for leaks in the hoses going to the evap emissions components of the vehicle. Might just be a hose that's come off for some reason, or has abraded wtih time and use. Enjoy! NTX5467

Agreed, no mention of stretch limos, BUT the market the late model DeVilles were after was not the stretch limo market, but the use of normal configuration DeVilles just as you'd buy from the showroom floor in what might be called "high end taxi" use. That was the market they'd unknowingly locked themselves out of by not paying attention to the luggage compartment/deck lid shapes. Used to be that when you mentioned a "limosine" (and were not talking about cows), it meant a longer wheelbase conversion of a high end luxury vehicle (i.e., Cadillac or Lincoln). For some years in the '60s, Cadillac even built some "in house". Now, a "limosine" could be a Chevy Suburban or other normal vehicle (in whatever trim level) that is designed to haul many people at once. I've seen some "limosine companies" that carry contract labor to worksites in full size vans. "Luxury" and "jump seats" seem to not be in the mix as they once were. Enjoy! NTX5467

I see where Norb is coming from . . . with the Detroit International Auto Show typically being the highest profile event of its kind, you expect to see EVERYTHING there for EVERYBODY, not bits and pieces. But other cities have sprung up their own auto shows for one reason or another and then wooed the manufacturers to bring new vehicles to unveil there instead of at Detroit. The Los Angeles show preceeds Detroit by about a week, so I think they kind of called a competitive truce so that they could schedule things so all of the press could attend both events instead of having to choose between them. Hence, new vehicles shown in LA, then others in Detroit, and yet others later in Chicago. Spreads things out some, but still the visitor would expect to see EVERYTHING at every one of them and could draw some somewhat incorrect assumptions/conclusions about what car lines are healthy and which ones are not. And then there are the media people that take these presumptions, expand upon them with their own "conclusions" of why something is not there, and spread incorrect information to the masses. I really think it was better when all of the new vehicles were coming out in the fall of the year (for the next model year) instead of spreading their introductions out throughout the calendar year. It's supposed to drive more consistent sales traffic all during the year that way, but I don't believe it's really working like that any more. At least that "year-round traffic" orientation was what I recall hearing when they started doing that. I really suspect there were other "agendas" in that orientation. It might have been nice if they'd had something shaped like a Lucerne on a turntable, roped off, with a cover over it. A sign on the car cover could have mentioned something like . . . "A New Buick coming soon . . .". At least that would have generated positive questions about "What is THE new Buick going to be?" with the product reps on the floor. Might even have been worthy of a presentation with the high fashion presenter too! Sometimes I wonder just how many opportunities our modern marketing people MISS to promote a future product or give the impression that an allegedly "stodgy" brand isn't ready for the glue factory. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

There is NO doubt that Ford is the "traditional" fleet favorite and seems to strongly cater to that market--especially in the limo and other "livery" niche markets for cars and light truck chassis vehicles. In a GM dealership magazine a few years ago, the Cadillac people were taking great pride in them getting many prestigious livery companies to start using Cadillacs instead of Lincolns. Obviously, few people had considered Cadillacs after the body on frame Fleetwood went out of production. Yet this article mentioned ONE HUGE ITEM -- the ability to stand the largest size suitcases up on their sides and close the deck lid. The Lincolns would do that with no problem, but the DeVilles prior to the current body series would not. KEY THING--carrying the customer's luggage! So the Cadillac people made a few minor changes and could suddenly compete for that business again. During the last rear wheel drive Fleetwood production, there was a "Livery Option" equipment package. From what I recall, the rear axle was from a 3/4 ton Chevy pickup and there were special control arms in the front suspension too. Obviously getting it set up for stretch limo conversions, it appeared. A couple of other things which would affect maintenance costs. The Cadillac Northstar takes 7+ quarts of oil per change whereas the Ford 4.6L V-8 takes only 6 (and the Buick 3800 takes 4.5 or the Chevy 5.7L V-8 takes 5). So you see where "that's" going real quick! GM might have their computerized Oil Life Monitor, but I suspect many fleet people might ignore that situation and do more frequent oil changes. So, if you take the vehicle's body construction architecture out of the mix per se, consider the configuration of the available trunk space (as mentioned), plus the basic oil change items, the Cadillacs would be more expensive to operate. Perhaps if everybody was not quite so concerned about having "top of the line" livery vehicles, they might have looked at black Park Avenues instead of Cadillacs? Yet with Ford so entrenched in those market segments, it could also be possible that few companies would desire to completely reconfigure and restock (with parts) their maintenance shops to accomodate a non-Ford vehicle. Not to mention the established knowledge of the Ford vehicles with respect to reselling them to other users for similar uses. Enjoy! NTX5467

Over the years, our TX DPS has usually ordered some reasonably nice cars, trim wise. Usually cloth interiors over vinyl in many cases. The cloth brocade interiors in the Fury IIs or similar might have looked a little fancy for a law enforcement vehicle, but they were also buying cars (at the state level) for other departments other than just the Highway Partol units. These also included the various under cover, Texas Rangers, and detective cars too. A trained eye could spot them (wide base wheels with wide radials and rear sway bars, for example and when available, factory dual exhaust). So buying all of these cars in "one spec" but varying the colors and such was the way they seemed to do it--at least when they were buying Dodges/Plymouths and Fords. The "real" police units would usually have a Certified Speedometer as part of the police package. That could be a determining factor as to whether or not the car is "real", without seeing a build sheet. In the Chrysler realm of things, several of the items in the police package (which had its own option code on the data plate) were the same as what was in the HD Trailer Tow package. There were also several "levels" of police units too, depending on the engine option desired. Ford did similar, typically. Each level of police unit had it's own "sales name" and engine choice attached to it. During the 85 mph speedometer era, the certified police speedometers would typically go up to about 130mph. I happened to catch the certified speedometer heads on "closeout" at Chryler and bought two for my '80 Newport (the hash marks stop at 127mph). Each one came with a card stating that they were guaranteed accurate +/- 1mph in a specified temperature range. I inquired to a friend that was in a speedometer shop about how they certified them. He replied that they had a special temperature compensation spring in them (a temp range was listed on the card) so they could have that higher degree of accuracy. I knew that normal speedometers could be pretty accurate in their calibration, but I suspect the "certified" nomenclature would make the readings admissible evidence in court in the absence of an accurate radar clocking. Of course, for any speedometer to be accurate, the tire size/rolling diameter had to be the same as "production". Sometimes, it seems the police brochures had some of the same advertising people working in them as regular cars. The police package names and also the other things they described their cars with. I had the opportunity to test drive a circa '86 Caprice 9C1 Police Car before it was "made ready". In that time frame, that was the only way you could get a 350 V-8 in a Caprice (regular civilian cars were limited to 305 4bbls) and you had to be a "qualified law enforcement buyer" to even get the car (but there was also a 6 months of ownership stipulation before it could be resold, as I recall). I'd read about the various HD items and was impressed with how tight the whole car felt, compared to other Caprices I'd driven. It was solid, quiet, and white. Then I came back in and started looking for 9C1-specific items. Main upgrades were suspension, brakes, electricals, and those "green" high-silicone content rubber hoses for coolant, with other items including fan clutches and such in the mix too. Seems that most of the Chevys I saw back then were vinyl bucket seat cars with rubber floor mats, but some also had vinyl split benches too (as split benches were standard anyway), but with a thicker grade of coated fabric than normal. Back in the '60s and '70s, there were lots of "mix and match" option capabilities at GM, not to mention "fleet options". A knowledgeable dealership operative that knew what options did what could probably have basically duplicated a police-spec car where it mattered (engine, brakes, suspension) without actually getting a police-spec car. Then, if they had enough "room" in the price, they could spend another $100.00 (parts & labor) to put a certified speedometer in one of these cars too. LOTS of possibilities. Another place where finding a build sheet for the car would be helpful. And who's to say that GM Fleet operatives might not have used some excess production capacity to build some "near-police-spec" vehicles (at a special price) just for that situation. Whether or not the lower level spec cars had the certified speedometers might be open for discussion. In '77, Pontiac put out a big push for their LeMans police package cars. The division was obviously heavily price-supporting the final bid prices as they seemed to undercut everybody else's bid. Put lots of those cars on the streets in the DFW area too--but that was the only time many of the local departments ever considered and bought Pontiacs. After that buy cycle, they went back to their normal Fords and Plymouths, it seemed, and the dealership that was making all of the sales changed owners. And then came the AMC Matadors a few years later . . . There is a national police car owner's club. Reckon their members might have any more information on Buick police cars? Just some thoughts, NTX5467

I would expect that genuine police-spec vehicles would have a rubber floor mat to replace the more normal carpet floor covering. The carpeting could have been substituted if the rubber floor mats were not available on the line when the police cars were built. OR if the car was a carefully-optioned civilian vehicle that was used for police purposes (by authorized law enforcement agencies). OR maybe it was a "supervisor" car that did not see regular partrol duties. A couple of different scenarios that could only be solved with the Build Sheet, I suspect. Enjoy! NTX5467

As I recall, an early Hemi's an early Hemi's an early Hemi - except that each car line (and most probably the light duty trucks too) had their own unique cubic inch displacement. Dodge cars had the smallest, DeSotos had larger sizes, but did it with the longest strokes, and Chryslers had the largest size with a more balance bore/stroke sizing. It's highly possible that they would all go in the same place, but then the truck motors might have different motor mount setups (front and transmission bellhousing mounts instead of side motor mounts like the cars typically did--could be like the Chevys were in that all of the necessary bolt hole bosses were cast, but might not be used in all applications). The truck applications would also be more low rpm oriented. Smaller carburetors, possibly smaller valve sizes, possibly different camshafts. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

I don't recall polarity affecting voltage output as such -- just the direction the current flows. All voltage regulators must be correctly adjusted. There's an air gap adjustment under the cover--similar to ignition contact points. Some had external screw adjustments on them too, which were usually used in situations of frequent short trips and such. I suspect the voltage spec should be similar to what it is for the later alternator equipped vehicles. Target running voltage of 14.2 volts at 100 degrees F at the voltage regulator. You can find that spec and the adjustment proceedure in the Chrysler factory service manual, I suspect. You do need to get the voltage situation "in check" soon! Continued use at that level can compromise the integrity and durability of all electrical components in the wiring harness! Not to mention finding any questionable wiring connections--not the kind of troubleshooting that needs to happen. What about "amps" output at what engine rpm? It might be inconvenient, but you need to get somebody to troubleshoot the generator/regulator situation that is still well-versed in that system. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Coker also has, if I recall correctly, a tire size conversion chart on their website. 7.60" x 25.4mm/inch = 193.04mm section width. Add "10" for the P-metric situation and it becomes basically a 205mm section width tire. Yet I highly suspect that any current P205/75R-15 tire will not be close to the same overall diameter of your existing tire. It might be that a P225/75R-15 tire might be closer to the correct diameter of the 7.60-15 tire. Another method might be to physically measure the existing 7.60-15 tire for its circumference (converted to feet). Then divide that number into 5280 to get a "Revs per mile" figure. With that figure, you can go into many tire manufacturers' websites and look for tires with a similar number. Or in mass marketers like www.tirerack.com too. Those spec charts will also have section width and recommended rim width information too. Others might have some recommendations of wheel use too, especially with radial tires. Not to mention some experience with what tire size fits their similar cars. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Good points, JPC. Some forget that Buick built some of the most distinctive full size station wagons in the early to middle 1960s of any manufacturer. Right down to bucket seats and console! Definitely somewhat rare and very neat! The Dodge Magnum "wagon" is a neat looking vehicle. I'm not sure if it's the roof line shape or what, but it just looks neat. I haven't driven one yet to see how much different it feels than the companion Chrysler 300. Now that the general public has been "sold" on the traction attributes of front wheel drive vehicles, the task to again sell them on rear wheel drive vehicles with appropriate traction control devices might be hard to do (just as getting everybody out of larger rwd cars was in the '80s). With the modern electronic controls, which set of wheels drive the car could well be unimportant as the computers will take care of things anyway. In past times, Chrysler has had their greatest successes by breaking apart and heading off in new styling and design directions. A recent example would be their product line starting with the Ram truck in '92. They might not have enough production capacity to challenge Ford or GM in that area, but they sure can create "buzz" in the marketplace and influence the designs from other companies for years to come. Sorry for that minor digression. As I mentioned earlier, perhaps WE ought to be the people that GM asks what would be neat to have the keys to (and why). Just how neat would it be to have the original LaCross concept car AND a Blackhawk in your driveway???!!!! Styling! Technology! POWER! BUICK!! Don't forget, though, that the late '80s Lucerne show car was the basis for the last gen Riviera and the XP5000 concept car of the early '90s was in the same basic shape as the 1997 1/2 Regal. I wanted to mention that as an awareness comment. Enjoy! NTX5467