NTX5467

Somewhere, back about 1970, the federal government got involved in car design in a different way than just emissions and safety things--brake linings. They put pressure specs for a certain degree of brake application (i.e., retardation rate). Prior to that time, power brakes were very touchy, in many cases. But whenever I get into my '70 Skylark (which has "undertermined" brake linings in it), and I forget where I am, just moving the car out of the driveway can result in "eating steering wheel" -- at least once -- until I use an easier application of the brake pedal. Adjusting the brake pedal's pushrod, at the brake pedal, might be needed, if the pedal travel is suddenly longer. Possibly. The pedal pushes on a "reaction" mechanism when the brake pedal is pushed. That opens the valving inside the booster to let the manifold vacuum "assist" the application. That's part of what makes the pedal "drop" when you start the car with the brakes lightly applied. This valving is probably not included in a rebuild kit, which typically would include a new diaphram and seals, I suspect. Yet if a quality reman booster was installed, I would suspect it would have been replaced in that process. PLUS the reman booster would most probably have been bench-checked as part of their quality control process--if done by a reman facility and not a private entity. Just my gut suspicions. Brake lining composition can be an issue, though. "Softer" or linings with more asbestos in them might stop with less pedal pressure, but would also have less stopping power when they were heated somewhat (i.e., "fade"). Such linings would not be the best choice for a heavy car used at highway speeds or in hilly terrain due to their lower fade resistance. Linings with more heat resistance (i.e., semi-metallic, "brakes with brass") would be a better choice for heavier vehicles. Those less expensive linings might be fine for that first hard stop, but what then? Of what about in a slow moving processional where the brakes are constantly lightly applied much of the time? In another thread of this nature, there was mention of manifold vacuum issues. One comment was that the earlier Buick boosters needed to have 17" Hg to work properly. Basically, any V-8 should produce that, if it's in good condition. But if the vacuum is low, or the vacuum AT the booster is low, then the brakes will be "hard" and sluggish. For the "hot rod" market and other applications, most of the aftermarket brake suppliers (the ones that advertise add-on disc brake systems, for example), now list small auxiliary vacuum pumps to add to the existing power brake systems. As these symptoms seem to all deal with older vehicles, has the vacuum levels "at the booster" been checked with an accurate vacuum gauge? What about the rubber brake lines for internal failure (i.e., "delaminating" internally that would put an extra "valve" in the line to keep full pressure from getting to the wheel cylinders? What about other vacuum hoses that might have deteriorated such that the booster "sees" less vacuum? By observation, if the "softer" linings worked for a while, but then stopped working as well, perhaps they "glazed"? When those drums were "turned", did the resulting internal dimension then measure larger than the max dia spec cast into the drums? With the older brake linings, there was usually not much attention made to the surface finish that resulted from that operation, or at least not as much as disc brakes got in that respect. The resulting finish needs to be pretty dang smooth, more glassy slick then satiny, so that the linings will not overheat too soon (i.e., glaze) and fade as the linings and shoes "wear-in". In theory, I think, you can take some 80 grit file board and scuff through the glaze to get new lining material in contact with the drums. IF that might help the issue, then linings could be an issue. Although it seems plausible that totally new brake linings and refinished brake drum friction surfaces would be ready for max effort stops, that's not the case. Any brake lining/friction area interface needs to get some easier break-in stops before they get a full effort stop, especially with metallic linings. I know that one criteria of brake performance would be the low speed lockup situation, but how do things feel from 50mph, for example? I would suspect that if there's not sufficient vacuum in a decel mode from 50mph, there's not going to be. Back when the Chevy Impala SS was introduced in 1962, one part of the Super Sport option package was metallic linings for the drum brakes. These linings were there for high speed stopping performance and durability in such conditions. But when the drag racers got those cars and took them to the strip, they usually ended up putting the non-Super Sport spec brake linings on them, especially the automatics. Why? The metallic linings were not hot enough to work as they staged the cars so the cars would creep through the Chrondeks if they tried to load the engine against the foot brake at the starting line. The metallics worked well when they were hot, as in a road racing situation, but not when cold. I suspect that any "lifetime" lining would be somewhat metallic in composition. But modern metallic linings have much better tolerance of cooler temperatures too, by observation. So, if everything's operating "to spec" under the hood, then do the performance check from about 50mph (deserted country road might be a good place or a highway with little traffic), doing a moderate brake application to quickly decel to about 35mph from 50mph. If things feel better (pedal pressure wise) at that speed range, then it might be a vacuum issue rather than a brake lining issue. I presume all of the "lockup" testing has been done on hard surfaces. What happens when it's tried on dirt at slower speeds? It could be several issues too. A little "lower vacuum", a little "old stock brake linings", and a little "brake system maintenance" too. When was the last time the system received a full brake fluid flush? Just some thoughts. Proceed at your own risk. NTX5467

Back when I started buying oil for cars that I owned, I looked around and wanted to put the best thing I could in it. At that time, Castrol was not a really big brand in the USA (circa 1975), other than possibly with the motorcycle people (when I started looking for Castrol, people referred to it as "motorcycle oil" and questioned my using it in an automotive engine). They were also touting an additive, "liquid tungsten" as the newest, best thing. But, I also knew that Castrol had a European heritage (i.e., Autobahn) and that if it would do well in a small displacement European engine, with generally smaller bearing surfaces and running at higher rpms for very extended periods of time, it ought to be a "cruise in the park" with an American engine with more generous bearing surfaces and lower rpm levels. On the one new car I bought in 1977, after over 400,000 miles on the engine with Castrol GTX20W50, then changing to Syntech Blend 20W50 later on, until I replaced it at 576,000 miles (all of the freeze plugs were needing to be replaced and pulling the engine was required, so we just swapped engines, installing one I'd had in "wait" for many years). When I did a cam, timing set, and intake manifold upgrade at 92,000 miles (at 4000 mile change intervals) everything in side was unbelieveably clean and free of deposits and such. Even very few staligtites on the bottom of the intake manifold. People that had been using other brands of oil were amazed. By observation, it seems that many drag racers, who might have started driving and buying oil back when Valvoline started getting involved in drag racing advertising and such started using Valvoline back then (in the early '60s) and still do. When I started paying attention to car stuff in the later '50s, you'd hear people "swear by" certain oils or other products. That was back way before there were so many conglomerates that owned things. Amalie, and it's Pennsylvania crude oil stock was supposed to be one of the best oil stocks due to its long molecular chain structure--so it hung together better than other oils might in severe conditions. We always used Gulf oil and gas in our cars back then, and when we'd need to change valve cover gaskets and such, everything was always reasonably clean inside. One mechanic remarked that the only other oil that kept things cleaner, at least in motors he'd seen apart, was Valvoline--that was in about '68. One Exxon service station operator commented that one particular name brand was using Arabian crude for their oil stocks and they usually had sluding issues more with that brand of oil than others. Later observations at the work place confirmed that, as that was their favored brand back then. Some oils seemed to tolerate extended drain intervals better than others, as I recall, even though they all met the same performance specs (MS, etc.). But it seemed to me that when Gulf changed over to Chevron in TX in about '72, the fuel lost about 2 pump octane points and the equivalent oil did not perform quite so good--just my observations in the vehicles that I was taking care of back then. When oil became a more integral part of the vehicle emissions system (remember when "ashless" oil was an improvement in the early '70s?), plus it having to meet increasingly tough standards for cleanliness, wear resistance, and longevity, lots of those old recommendations kind of disappeared as the oil performance criteria specs changed greatly. Do a Google search for the ILSAC specs and you'll see just how far things have come and are still going in the oil improvement areas. Used to be that they would use one particular automotive engine to run one particular test on and use other brands and sizes for other tests. Never did understand that unless those particular motors typically had problems in the particular areas the oil in them was being tested for. Things like piston skirt skuffing, low temperature sludge, bearing wear, etc. Whereas in earlier times, the base crude stock would be important, but in more modern times it's more the respective additive and viscosity improver packages that each oil manufacturer/marketer uses that make the difference--whether in petroleum, blended synthetic, or "full" synthetic. When somebody asks me for a brand recommendation on a new vehicle, the reply is to use the viscosity that is recommended by the manufacturer (usually on the oil filler cap) and then choose a brand that they desire AND is readily available where they get their oil changed or buy it to change themselves--important if the vehicle "uses" oil. If they ask what I might use in my own cars, then I tell them. But still, I let the customer make the brand decision themselves. At the dealership level, the "preferred" oil is the one that usually has the best total package deal. Price, equipment services, service, the sales rep, etc. are very important. Many use bulk oil programs too. The one thing that might concern me is that with all of the mergers and combinations in modern times, just how do you know that the Exxon oil you buy is not Mobil oil? Or that Quaker State is not really Pennzoil, or vice versa (they're now corporate siblings), without testing for the chemical markers in each brand of oil? In the "old days", such a thing would never have been a question as they were all separate and unique entities, but it's not that way anymore. And the same thing would apply to gasoline brands then and now, too. But as long as the oil is changed reasonably often for the use and conditions, with a quality filter of at least OEM specs (OEM brand too, I might recommend), then any engine should have a good service life. Used to be that an engine was "worn out" at 80,000 miles, but it's certainly not that way anymore. Oil and filtration improvements, plus more refined machine work at the engine plants, have contributed to these things. Also, if the oil meets a Mil-spec (military specification) number, which they most all will as they all usually bid for military contracts, then all brands mix with and tolerate other brands of oil. Alhtough "brand loyalty" seems to be a dying orientation, it's good to see that it's still alive in some areas! Yet I'm also sure that those in the petroleum and automotive engineering areas have information on various oils that nobody else has access to, which would indicate that some brands are better than others and in which respects. At this stage of the game, there should be no "bad" oils, just some that are better than others. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Agreed! Using a "universal" CD changer that uses a particular lower band FM frequency to "broadcast" via the radio antenna would be the best way to do it. In addition to the Riviera group, you also might touch base with the Reatta group on this issue. Enjoy! NTX5467

Kevin, with all due respect, it would be better to go ahead and get something booked in YOUR name at one of the designated hotels and then ALSO get your name on a Waiting List at the Host Hotel for any cancellations that might happen as time progresses. It is still a little early for cancellations to happen, as most usually don't happen until the month or weeks or days before the meet when "something comes up" or "plans change" (for various reasons). Yet, getting your name on the Waiting List early on and having backup accomodations could well be the best strategy at this point in time. But also be cognizant of the stated cancellation policies of any reservations that you might make! As Keith mentioned, there should be shuttles that run the circuit of the designated hotel venues. Such shuttles usually run during the days of the meet and also on the evening of the banquet activities. You can contact the host chapter for more information on those things. Willis Bell 20811 Director North Texas Chapter, BCA

Just as with "AntiLockBrakes" or "V8" or "V6" namaeplates in the '80s, the Catalina/Bonnevilles had "RadialTunedSuspension" nameplates on them in those 1973 era vehicles (and some afterward too). Back then, the radials were just normal radials and not specific "performance" radials, although the handling improvements were there anyway. It used to be that you greased the speedometer cable at reasonably regular intervals, with either graphite or application-specific lube (GM/Delco has one that seems similar to DippityDoo in color and consistency, but is a lubricant instead of hair gel, Part Number ST800?). Usually, fresh lube would put things back quiet and smooth. But if the inside of the cable housing has worn through to expose the wire metal sheathing inside the plastic housing's "wear surface", then you need to do the whole thing. Considering the age and such, it might not be a bad idea to replace the whole assembly (which comes pre-lubed and ready to install, at least the GM ones do) with none of the other labor operations to do (as the universal cables do which you cut to length and glue to tip onto). AND, if the vehicle has a factory cruise control, it could be that the cruise transducer under the hood has locked up and caused the failure of the lower cable (and possibly the related speedometer gears too). Then you'll not only need the new lower cable, you'll possibly need other things too. In some cases, the gears in the speedometer have just flat worn so far that they don't touch any more. If there's a speedometer ratio adapater in the mix too, which screws onto the transmission and then the cable screws onto it, it might have locked up or worn out too. There will be some stamp numbers on it to indicate the "ratio" inside the adapater, which will need to be matched to keep the speedometer calibration package for the vehicle accurate for when it was produced. IF you change to a different tire size from what the vehicle came out with, it changes all of this. There's a neat tire size comparison utility at the Miata Club website. Pretty neat as it not only has numbers but graphics relating to the "starting" size and the "ending" size of the two that are being compared. Even figures the speedometer error too. Only thing is that I believe that it's calibrated with metric sizing and not alphanumeric. Still, it's pretty good for comparisons with the more current sizes. Enjoy! NTX5467

It's not just synthetics that go into those nooks and crannies, even different brands of petroleum oil do that too. One friend complained of oil leaks after he tried Castrol instead of his normal Pennzoil--all "normal" petroleum-base oils. He changed back from that "blasted" (a tamer word than he used) Castrol and the leaks stopped. With many cork-based gaskets, once they start to wick oil through them, the only way to fix that is to replace them--synthetic or petroleum based oil will not matter. In older engines with older-spec oil seals, sometimes the synthetic will seep past them better than it should. But I also recall the comments of a BCA member that put a particular brand (check the archives regarding the travels to the Flint Buick Centennial for tis) of synthetic oil in his '55 or '56 and had no problems with leaks or added consumption on the trip to and from Flint. In those earlier engines, I suspect that 30 weight motor oil would have been the most popular choice for normal summer temerature ranges. I suspect that 10W-30 or 10W-40 would be good replacements. I don't know that I'd go with a 5W-30 oil unless the winter temps required it. Remember too, that low number in the multi-viscosity oil is related to the viscosity at lower temps (32 degrees F, if I recall correctly) and NOT specifically a cold engine. Therefore, in 80 degree ambient temps, the 5W-30 oil could really be more like a 20 weight oil than a 5 weight oil. Of course, as the engine starts and the operating temps rise, the viscosity will rise to the design level of the upper number. Thicker oil might be needed more of a "fix" for looser bearings and weak rings, but too much viscosity can be bad too. I could tell the difference in going from 30 weight oil to 20W-50 in a rebuilt engine with 6000 miles on it. I drained out the 20W50 Castrol GTX and substituted 10W40 GTX and things got back to normal (with respect to engine response with the prior 30 weight oil). But I also remember the time we sold a new crankshaft and bearings to a shop that had a Pontiac T/A 400 in for noisy bearings. Seems the guy added two cans of STP Oil Treatment (viscosity improver) to the oil with an oil change with 20W50 to try to quieten things down, but the resultant 50W70, or thereabouts, oil mixture would not flow soon enough to keep the bearings from starving for oil. Whoops! Synthetic oil in general will flow easier (the first time I did a change with Castrol SynTech 10W40, it poured out of the bottle so fast that I wondered if it had been a sealed bottle that was not filled as full as it should have been!). It's that easier pumpability that requires less power from the engine to drive the oil pump, which relates to more power at the flywheel as a result. Plus probably a little faster throttle response (that is more "feelable" than 5 more horsepower at the flywheel, I suspect). If you do some research on the various ratings on the current oil bottles, you'll find that as long as it's a 10W30 or 5W30 oil, they ALL will be "fuel economy" oils, including the petroleum base oils. I pulled that information from a Google search a while back, so I know it's out there without reading some oil company's marketing dialogue. And that fuel economy rating has been enhanced by the latest (post June, 2004?) higher letter ratings too. Usually, camshaft wear issues are more related to the Parkering/surface hardening treatment process of the finished cam lobes than specifically a particular brand of motor oil--not to mention the method of initially lubing the cam lobes before the lifters are installed and initial "fire-off" and "run-in" procedures. With all due respect, perhaps the brand of oil might have been the scapegoat for other issues? Might have been some low quality valve lifters too? A couple of added variables in the mix too . . . possibly. I concur that even the least expensive oils on the market today are better than the premium oils of the early '60s. The succession of basic oil formulation specs to keep pace with OEM applications/requirements of new and future engines is the reason. Even the detergent packages in current oils probably far exceed the levels of the later '60s "HD" oils, regardless of brand, but some brands are still better than others in that respect too. The oil "landscape" is a wide one and what's available in one place might not be readily available in another part of the country. Some outlets will only have the more recent 5W30, 10W30, or diesel-spec 15W40 as those are currently used oil specs. Yet most brands still have 30 weight oils in their catalogs, just not that many places keep it any more as the multi-weights are considered "better" these days. I suspect that for what you're doing, a quality 30 weight motor oil would do fine. You could find some to "baseline" the comparison if you decided to later change to a multi-viscosity oil (probably 10W30 or 10W40 depending on summer heat issues or other preferences). I suspect you might be better off with a petroleum based motor oil, mainly for availabilty and cost issues . . . but if you can afford it, blended synthetics are better, and synthetics are supposed to be the best. Your money, your judgment call--just like what brand of oil filter to use. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Radials became standard in '75 pretty much across the board on GM cars, along with catalytic converters and "retuned" engines for better response and economy. Prior to that time, Pontiac had their "Radial Tuned Suspesion" that included different suspension bushings, a rear sway bar, and different shock absorber calibrations along with radial tires. This "new" suspension calibration/tire/body interface was designed to showcase the added capabilities of the radial tires compared to the bias-belted tires. In later times, everything would have superceded into the radial bushings, I suspect. Base Catalinas would have had G78-15s and Bonnevilles and station wagons would probably have had H78-15s, but I suspect that the radial tire package was just with the HR78-15s. If your Pontiac had the Radial Tuned Suspension package, there should be several nameplates announcing that inside AND outside the car as it was an "upscale" option back then. The rear sway bar could also have been available as part of a "police" suspension option without the need for radial tires, but the rest of the vehicle would also relate to that equipment orientation too, I suspect, if that was the case. You might inquire to Pontiac Historical to find out how it came from the factory, if you desire. For a reasonable price, they can put together the information on your vehicle, if it fits their available range of year models, to detail just how it was built originally. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Basically, there were several different tire sizes back then that could have been on the larger cars. The federally-mandated tire information decals in the door frames or on the glove box lid were usually oriented toward "minimum" tire sizes to prevent anybody from putting smaller than needed tires on cars when it came time for replacement. In the earlier times, the OEMs sometimes skimped on tire sizes for various reasons. As things have played out with the many variations of tire nomenclatures, the old G78-15 (prior 8.15-15 size) equivalent P-metric tire is now a P215/75R-15 with the G70-15 being P225/70R-15. H78-15 (prior 8.45-15) is now replaced by P225/75R-15, but if you check the section width dimensions, the current P225/75R-15 is really closer to the old J78-15 size than the H78-15--probably about in the middle between them with respect to section width and circumference measurements. 8.85 x 25.4mm/inch = 224.79mm so that explains the P225/75R-15 size being more "J" than "H". But the reason the P225/75-15 works in place of the H78-15 is that with the added sidewall deflection of a radial compared to a bias ply (at proper inflation pressure) results in the same ground clearance as the H78-15 would have. Just my observations. For example, I have a '70 full size car that came from the factory with dual-stripe Firestone bias-belted whitewall tires in H78-15 sizing (or at least that's what's in the trunk for a spare and it had Firestone tire warranty information in the glove box). After I bought it, I noticed that it tended to scrape the factory dual exhaust pipes in places that other similar cars we had did not. So I upsized to a JR78-15 radial and stopped that problem. The production life of the J78-15 was somewhat short-lived, taking a back seat to the L78-15 size. The L78-15 (prior 9.15x15) equates to the current P235/75R-15 size. Somewhere in my archives, I have a copy of "CARS" magazine from about 1970. It has a chart of ALL of the tire sizes in it at that time and their related dimensions. This was when "metric" was really "metric" and not "P-metric". In those earlier times, a 195-14 radial would equate to a F78-14 or the earlier 7.75-14 or the still earlier 7.50-14 size. From what I've noticed when the P-metrics came out that 195-14 size would become a P205/75R-14 size. Not sure why it worked that way, but it seemed to in many cases. Looking at the section width specs in the various tire manufacturer (or places like TireRack with many brands and their respective tire specs, which CAN vary from brand to brand a little for a given size spec), if you match section width and aspect ratio, you'll probably end up with tires that might look a little small, width wise, compared to what we're used to seeing these days, but with comparable circumference (relates to the "Revs/Mile" spec in the charts) dimensions. I ALSO need to note that I've found a current tire to replace the somewhat obsolete H78-14 size in P225/75R-14 sizing of a Cooper Trendsetter SE whitewall tire, for anybody that might need something in that particular size. In another article on tire sizes in a circa 1968 issue of CAR LIFE, they stated that there were "now" sizing specs for the letter series tire designations. Specs that were "government specs" which allowed for a 7% variation and the letter designation not only related to a sizing spec, but also to load capacity. This was all in the name of "consumer protection" and to help make tire buying easier for the general public. All of this worked pretty well as long as just normal 75 aspect ratio tires were being talked about. When the aspect ratios started getting in to the 70s and 60s for wider-tread performance oriented tires, it got more complicated. Like a F78-14 would generally have the same circumference and loaded radius as a G60-14. When the P-metrics came out, they also included the higher inflation pressure orientation to aid in fuel economy. With them, the old 32 psi limit became 35 psi for normal passenger vehicle tires. In the P235/75R-15 size, there were "Extra Load" (or 6 ply-rated) tires that were rated at 40psi. These inflation pressure increases, with respect to "crossover" sizes, led to the orientation that you used max load capabilities at the higher max inflation pressure to determine what P-metric tire was a suitable replacement for the earlier size designations. This usually resulted in a tire of smaller circumference and narrower tread replacing a larger tire. Load capacity is important, but so is speedometer calibration. Now, I think, most of those crossover issues have been adjusted somewhat to reflect physical sizing rather than specifically load capacity. Seems like the 69 Electras would have had J78-15s from the factory? J78-15s replaced the earlier 8.85x15 size, if I recall correctly. LeSabres would have had G78-15 (for the more base equipment models) and H78-15 (for the more equipment laden models, and Wildcats). But with respect to load capacity and physical sizing, I suspect that a P225/75R-15 might work for all of them, but be sure to check the speedometer calibration for good measure. I suspect the larger P235/75R-15 might be a little too large, circumference-wise, for proper cosmetics--but that would be an owner's judgment call. One other thing to mention is that, generally, tread width of the tire should be within 1" of the rim's width. Plus that for each 1" of rim change, tire section width will change about .2" For example, a tire designed with a 6" tread width and is designed for a target rim width of 6", and a 8.55" section width in these situations, would measure 8.75" when mounted on a 7" wide rim and 8.35" when on a 5" rim. In other aspects of this illustration, the wider rim would tend to make the tire's sidewall more vertical (and less compliant on bumps) and tend to sharpen handling responses. Similarly, using the narrower rim width would put more arc in the sidewall and ride a little smoother and have a little softer steering response--all of this at the same inflation pressure too. And then there's wheel "offset" and how it relates to "backspacing", which can relate to clearance issues of the tire to chassis/body parts . . . in similar ways at the tire's section width can. Enjoy! NTX5467

Great information Pat and Bill. I have observed a little different orientation in a few respects, over the years. First, instead of knocking the plug squarely into the water jacket, I've seen most mechanics push it in with the driver but THEN knock it more on one side so that it pivots in the hole so that it can then be pulled out with some Vice Grip or Channelock-type pliers. That way, no need to fish it out of the water jacket. The installation "goop" of choice, by observation, seems to be the Permatex brown/black sealer. There might be something better now, it is probably might relate to local availability and personal prefs of the installer/engine builder. Key thing is that when you're done, you can paint them for the final detail labor operation, if desired. When you remove the plugs, you'll probably find a variable amount of cooling system "residue" in the water jackets. This is when it would be a GREAT TIME to do a really good cooling system flush! Most of the residue will be toward the back of the block, as it's usually the lowest part of the block's coolant passages due to the installation angle of the engine in the chassis. Yep, it will be one of those messy jobs, but as we've mentioned in this forum in prior times, that's the best way to do it. If one plug is getting thin, then others might not be far behind . . . Just be cognizant . . . if you use a commercial flush chemical to aid in the flushing process, the rust and scale it removes will very possibly make the things the scale was attached to much thinner in their "wall thicknesses"--things like heater core passages and radiator core passages, plus the other "core plugs" in the engine. Therefore, it might be best to use these chemicals sparingly or just enough to get most of the job done to minimize their affects on these possibly marginal other areas or just use lots of plain water. When done, use some high quality coolant (but, as we've discussed in here before also, NORMAL coolant and not the Dexcool-type coolants) with some of the GM Cooling System Supplement "pellets" (probably about 2 pellets will be fine) to help with various seeps and, I believe, the ph balance of the mixture as it ages. Dexcool-type coolants are designed to work with later systems that are "closed" and have coolant reservoirs and related radiator caps which ARE always at the correct level. The issues that have occured, by observation and GM field checks, tend to relate to Dexcool equipped "closed" cooling systems that have not been maintained in the "Full" range in the coolant reservoirs for extended periods of time and/or were "contaminated" for various reasons with green coolant. Plus, Dexcool and "open" cooling systems do not seem to work well together. From what I've seen in the Preston website, their new "Prestone Yellow" coolant works with and in the same place as the prior "green" coolant (still with the same 30,000 miles/2 yr change interval) and will work in combination with Dexcool-type coolants (without degrading the existing longer change intervals). The "normal" coolant is still around in many places and in a variety of brands so that's your judgment call. Whether you do the "knock through" or "knock and turn" procedure, just make sure that you plan the project, budget about twice as much time as you suspect you might need, and have the necessary "implements and supplies" readily at hand. Doing these types of repairs in a time frame where there is no pressing use of the vehicle in the near future can make things "less stressful" should thing not go completely "as planned". Many like to put the brass plugs back in instead of the normal steel ones. Gets to be something of personal pref again, but the brass ones don't "rust" and cost a little more. Make sure that they are of good quality and "thickness" with either option, though. Good luck on your project! Just some thoughts, NTX5467

On the many GM cars that used that size in the mid-later 1970s (including Firebird Trans Am and Camaro Z-28), when the P-Metric sizing came around, the same cars used P225/70R-15 tires. Same physical sizing and revs/mile. As for the same tire series from Goodyear that might be one the car, I suspect it could be "Steelguard", "PolySteel", or "Eagle ST", but suspect one of the first two. Goodyear, like other tire companies (and probably worse than others) usually kept a product line for only about two years before "continuous improvement" put another name and tread design on the tire carcass to replace the earlier designs. You can check out the Goodyear Tire North American website for possible tires in that (or the P215/75R-15 equivalent size) might exist in that particular size. Or you can shop at www.TireRack.com for the same information AND other brands in that size. As a generalized replacement tire in that size, I've had many good sets of BFG Radial T/As on my '77 Camaro in the P225/70R-15 size. In my driving, they usually go at least 60,000 miles and typically handle all kind of weather very well. PLUS they originally were designed for and were the premium performance tire in the earlier times, but with some "continuous improvements" (in about the 4th generation now!) over the years without changing the basic cosmetics of the tire. In other words, it looks and performs good on '60s and '70s cars in that P225/70R-15 size--and better than the earlier versions. Plus, the price is good to! Goodyear is a good brand of tire, in many cases, but with their strong OEM orientation, that particular tire probably will not be widely serviced in their top line models of tires. Probably be in the Eagle GT lines only. Which, the Eagle GT was the Radial T/As competition back then and was on many factory muscle cars, as was the Gatorback. But with progressing time, more and more of the sizes that didn't sell were dropped or moved into other tire models. I'm sure that others have other orientations about tires, but finding the exact replacement tire models for the earlier car is impossible at this time. Even IF you might find some NOS tires to match what you have, they will most likely be too old to provide reliable service--as evidenced by recent tire failure articles in the news, which included an "unused spare tire" that was put on the ground to drive to the tire store. Use the Tire Rack and manufacturer websites to shop and determine what you might desire to get, plus shop the local tire retailers/discounters too. BUT the key to the local shopping would be to ask for the specific size and NOT what their "books" show would allegedly fit the vehicle (a LOT of misinformation in some of those books!). If they don't have it, they don't have it. Knowing what's available from the manufacturers is good to know when you go out looking for things in the local area. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

I suspect the future value and decision to have an OEM-quality repaint done might be in the explanation of "Presidential #296". More information? Enjoy! NTX5467

Regarding owning a shop and having all of the work done there . . . First, if you have a shop with at least one empty bay that you get all of your car stuff spread out in, that one bay that is NOT making you any money--period. So, add in that lost revenue into the price of what it costs to do the car. Then, if you get some of your employees to work on the car, THEY'll have to be paid too. "Freebies" only go so far and don't put any gas in the tank at the end of the pay period. Local car club members can be a far better place to get free labor and not squawk about it--might cost you some pizza or a steak dinner every so often, though--or help on THEIR projects later on. These club members would have more "buy-in" with the whole project so you know they'd do a better job (labor of love) than an employee working for free, typically. So, it might sound like a "slam dunk deal" to have a shop and do all of the restoration work there, but when you look at all of the details and side issues, about the only real advantage is that you might get a better deal on some of the "normal" hard parts (i.e., mechanical parts). If several of your associates go in together and order a large $$$$ volume of parts, many of the restoration suppliers will cut you a deal equal to or better than they cut their own "distributors"--with or without a shop name per se. Just a few explanations on the "in" deal of owning a shop and fixing your own cars . . . Sorry for making this post and again putting this thread at the top of the list, for those that might care. NTX5467

I believe that the Century Limited has come and gone over the time that we've had the current (up until 2005, partially) models. Initially, the Century was the entry level car and had the Century Custom as the normal upgrade. As with the last year of the Century, I suspect the Century Limited had to do with leather seats instead of cloth seats. When I saw a 2004 Century Limited at last year's new car show, I was impressed. But then the Regal LS usually had leather too. I suspect many dealers did not order the Century Limiteds, when available, as it could well have put the price of the car too close to the Regal LS. And for just a "few dollars more" . . . you got the higher level car with a Buick 3800 V-6 (instead of the Chevy 3.1L V-6 that the Century would have). I might also add that over the years, the equipment level (content) of the Centurys have seemed to vary somewhat. They all had the 3.1L Chevy V-6 in them, but the 2005 vintage Centurys had fold down back seat AND 4 wheel disc brakes (at least that's what the one I rented from National had on it, which I verified in the parts database). Seems like they "upped the ante" for the last ones. In reality, the Century's have been somewhat "neglected" and/or "maligned" for being what they were--the entry level Buick since the model reappeared on the "up to 2005" platform. Adding the springs and shocks from a Regal or similar car, plus the larger front/rear sway bars and some different wheels, the car could become something different than what it was from the factory. Figure in some engine enhancements and they can be an interesting alternative to the more expensive Regals--with a cheaper "buy-in" too. If I was going to replicate a chassis package, it would be the Gran Touring Suspension of the 1998 Regal LS. I rented one of those cars and it was totally astounding how rock solid that chassis was in any condition that you could throw at it! It was a little jiggly, but some Radial T/As instead of the Eagle LS tires might have taken care of that without diminishing the gutsy feel of the chassis. Not to mention . . . "NO Float"! Another reason to get a Century? No fog lights! Now that I think about it, cornering lights might have been part of the equipment package as the Intrigues had them too. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

I don't recall cornering lights on those cars, but they could have been. "Redundant Steering Wheel Controls" for the radio were usually keyed to a particular upgrade radio option and were available in other similar GM vehicles back then. I somewhat doubt that either of these options would have been on "fleet" vehicles back then. Could have been that there was some sort of equipment promotion from GM/Delco for the radio upgrades, though, during a particular time frame to possibly help get that radio upgrade "on the road". Cornering lights usually are tied to a particular trim level instead of being a "free floating" option. Only the fleet manager might know for sure, but it could also be that when they needed cars, the ones like you got were the only ones available at that time in your locale--AND the price was right. Several different possible scenarios. The mpg you quoted sounds reasonably decent for that vehicle, but I would also suspect it could be closer to 30mpg. I don't recall what the highway EPA ratings were for that car that year, though, but suspect they were in the high 20s. The other side issue is that I suspect that even as large as they are, the Park Avenues are a little easier to get through the wind (with less resistance and "drag" due to their generally softer and rounder bodies) than the smaller car might be. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

By the number series, the first two would have been first used on 1968 models, with the third one being similar for 1967 models. Past that, it would take the appropriate Chrysler parts book for those years and then possibly the Number Change/Price Schedule to see if they were later versions of earlier parts. Once the part number and model year are known,then it can be cross-refed to a parts group number that would nail down the specific application. Hope that helps, NTX5467

The other thing that came online with the 1974s was the radial tire/rear sway bar package, that was used with the W23 Class II 16 Slot (15x6) Road Wheels. That combination was in the Road Runner section of the 1974 Plymouth B-body sales brochure. I also saw one in person at Fenner Tubbs Chrysler-Plymouth in '74--same car that was in the brochure. Pretty nice car! Seems like they had somekind of Goodyear radials on them too, one that preceeded "BigFoot" Polysteel radials on the later cars--SteelGuard?--in GR70-15 sizing. Not a performace tire per se, but back then ALL radials performed better than bias-belted tires. Enjoy! NTX5467

Regardless of the selling price, you'll need to be able to document the vehicle as a genuine vehicle that was produced with that engine in it from the factory. Plus the other related equipment on the car. This is usually done with the codes on the Data Plate in the engine compartment and/or the correct Build Sheet for the vehicle. Then, prospective buyers will also desire to see pictures and such of the car, which you can probably link to from the forum site here. Also, make sure that the vehicle is what you claim it to be--period. Then, when a buyer and you make a deal on the car, make sure you get real money for it--and all of it before you release the title--no exceptions. Selling one of those cars is a little bit different than selling a "normal" car. Buyers will desire proof of documentation and such before they will get their money out, usually. So . . . be prepared to answer all kinds of quesions about the car, where it's been, and such. Enjoy! NTX5467

To me, one of the first things to do would be to determine if it was indeed factory undercoating or something that was applied "after the fact". The reason I mention that is that many times, any undercoating that was applied "in the field" was not the same undercoating material and did not physically look the same when dried. Build thickness of the material would be something else to look at, even though the existing material might have shrunk with age and such. You might also figure the location where the vehicle was originally sold into the equation too. It was not until the 1980s when "factory spec" undercoat was introduced into the restoration parts marketplace. All of the dealer-installed or "spray can" undercoat was usually of a much thinner viscosity and body than the factory production undercoat was. The aftermarket/dealer installed undercoat could be used to make the existing undercoat look "new" again, but it could not match the build thickness of the factory undercoat (unless you did many successive coats of it). Seems like there is 3M product called "Body Schutz" that is similar in consistence to the factory's thick-bodied undercoat? Seems like that in later years, about the only place you'd find undercoating on a GM car, from the factory, was in the wheelhouse areas. Unlike Unibody Chrysler products where the optional (or standard in some cases) undercoat would cover the entire bottom of the floorpan for sound deadening purposes. Funny thing was that our chapter treked to a member's garage building after our meeting today and there were several unrestored "mid-century" Buicks in there. Those might make good specimens to check for undercoating on. The other issue is that even if the factory did specify undercoat in certain areas, via the build instructions for the humans on the assembly line to follow, how these instructions were implemented on the assembly line could be highly variable. Day, time, shift, who was doing it, and even product shortages could affect what really happened with regards to a particular vehicle getting undercoat and in what places and in what amounts. Could even vary from plant to plant if different plants built the same models. A similar situation tends to exist for Inspection Marks/Stamps/Paint Daubs too. Hopefully some of those more knowledgeable about those particular Buicks might be better able to nail down where the undercoat generally should be and in what amounts. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

MrEarl . . . "high octane" or "super unleaded"???? "Octane booster"??? Thanks for the kind comments and reply, NTX5467

With respect to the AACA and the BCA, waaaayyyy back in 1996, when the radial tire "debates" were starting to heat up in the BCA, one of the comments I heard in the hall at the 1996 BCA National Meet had to do with some of the differences in the AACA and BCA judging orientations. It was held up to the BCA (as something of a Gold Standard of judging orientations) that the BCA should follow the AACA in their orientations regarding radial tires and halogen headlights. That the AACA allowed these "indiscretions" (modifications?) into their higher level awards (via lower point deductions?), then the BCA should follow suit. The reply (which I believe was made by a member of the National Office at that time) to that contention was that the BCA, being a "Buick ONLY" group, should hold its judging to a higher standard than any other similar group--period. Hence, the large point deductions for radial tires and halogen headlights as "incorrect items" on the vehicle (when on the "non-appropriate" years and models of Buicks. If the AACA orientation is for more allegedly "driveable" vehicles than really "end of the assembly line" correct vehicles in their highest levels of awards, then that is THEIR situation, not the BCA's. Each club is different and will naturally attract different people to them. If, per chance, an existing AACA member has other vehicles and then purchases a Buick, then it would be unlikely that they would ALSO join the BCA or other similar club. Others might not even have consisdered that there might be a Buick-only club anyway! It would also be interesting to see just what Buicks are in the AACA and not in the BCA. I perceive this situation to be highly similar to that of ROA or GS club people that are not in the BCA, for whatever reason. What about the Veteran Motor Car Club or other related clubs too? With all of its "universal umbrella" situations that have evolved over many years, the AACA is probably the one most well known club of its sort in the world. It's no wonder that they might also have more Buicks in their roster than the BCA might. Nor that they would need to have several regional national level events rather than one single large meet. To me, the BCA should be it's own entity and not "follow" what other clubs do as such. It's good to keep track of what they are doing and how they are doing it, then possibly adapting some of their things into how or what the BCA does, possibly, but NOT to specifically do something just because of what the other club does. Each club's clientel/members are a little different and usually look at things in a particular and unique manner. It's THAT difference that makes each club have its own character. Everybody needs to belong to clubs that they "fit" with, but trying to make one club act like another club is, by observation, not good or successful in the long run. In any event, it's better to be a "leader" than a "follower" in this respect. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

I concur, great comments, BuicksRule. NTX5467

MrEarl, thank you for your kind comments and thoughtful reply. Brad54 and I have also emailed back and forth over the past times--specifically on how to best orchestrate a Modified Class and keep all aspects of the modified class "well served" in the Buick segment of the car hobby. When I made that "aaaaHHAAAA, now we know"-type reply, I was in something of a jovial mood. Hence the "LOL" at the end of it. Not quite the sinister "LOL" of a good detective finding the something "bad" that he knew was there all along, but a "LOL" more in a poking fun orientation that somebody had inadvertantly revealed something (which the reply to Old-Tank seemed to indicate). I am not against substantive change, but we all know that "change for the sake of change" is not always best. Plus that the best type of change is somewhat evolutionary instead of "forced". Perhaps I'm a little sensitive to deadlines being "determined" instead of implementation dates being "offered" or "requested" by those that will be making it happen. Hence, the "tail wagging the dog" comments. Unfortunately, that's one of the signals I saw from earlier comments. Did I misread or misinterpret those? If I did, my apologies. Many of use have been in work situations where deadlines were dictated to us, sometimes seemingly out of whimsy, by those that might not have known what was really "doable in a quality manner" per se. Or a boss that wanted the employees to "stretch" a little out of their comfort zone. But we were being paid to be in those places that the dog wagged the tail. In this case, perhaps I'm being a little too sensitive on that issue? Maybe I'm considering it from the possible perspective of our host and moderator that have numerous demands upon their limited time. Perhaps these sensitivities are the result of places I've been before? Kind of like the old "unanswerable" question that people in the parts business have to deal with--Do you serve the customer(s) standing in front of you or answer that ringing phone (of the person, either existing customer or potential customer, that can't see what you're doing AND can get a negative orientation toward the company you work for as a result of the unanswered phone call)? The person on the other end of that phone line just does not know that you are temporarily overworked and must prioritize your actions, yet they could easily feel neglected as their desires were not met. Some people on the other end of unanswered phone calls have different orientations and behave differently than others might. Perhaps I'm a little too patient if I was making that unanswered phone call to somebody that I really desired to do business with, but I know that all people might not react in that manner. I feel sure that we all want these Buick-oriented forums to be the best and most user-friendly forums in the universe. I also feel sure that Peter and Roberta will let us know what they can do as they make those determinations and finalize the related executions of those changes/upgrades. There have been many good comments made and I look forward to see where things end up. So, MrEarl, the canteen's still clean and full of potable drinks. I even have some clean and empty cups if you'd like a drink? Enjoy! NTX5467

With all due respect to all involved, it seems things have really "turned ugly" in some respects and "oil pressures" have been allowed to have been elevated. Tommy is concerned because our editor has begun a policy of doing only ONE issue with modified Buicks in it. Is or are those minimum number of articles so disgusting to particular members that they get so irate about that? From what I've seen here, the answer would appear to be "Yes". But let's turn that around . . . how many articles on non-Modified Buicks or particular years of non-Modified Buicks are there that others might not have any interest in--each month? Is THAT the real issue? Do we protest those articles that we thumb right past just as the Modified Buicks articles might have been by those that might not be interested in them? I'm sure that Mr. Brooks' great articles in this month's magazine are of interest to many, but not specifically to ALL BCA members. Similar with the great Triple-Turbine DynaFlow articles and indepth restoration articles by Mr. Shoening, plus Matt Harwood's article. For someone that just wants to look at pictures, those print articles could have just been passed over, yet there were great information in those articles. Pictures and print items are both needed for any publication--period. Sometimes, the balance might be more than one or the other, but it usually balances out. I can understand some of Tommy's orientations. Orientations that probably make sense to him and others which share his orientation, but might be challenged by others. Old vehicles are something like real estate--they aren't building any more of them. A realistic point of view, but there will always be some that are more "important" or "desired" by others. I've also seen (as mentioned) the "less valuable" cars being scavenged for parts to fix the 2-door hardtops and convertibles of the same year for many years--which I feel is a real shame, but in a hobby that is somewhat driven by $$$$$$$, it's going to happen, yet no body has put up a big defense against that kind of attrition! Not to mention cars from "rust free" states scavenged by people for resale in the "rust" states JUST FOR THEIR COMMON BODY PARTS. Are these activities real cause for concern? Possibly. But just as with real estate, the less there is around, the higher the prices go up. As prices escalate, the less desireable models suddenly become real alternatives to the glamour models. Many people realize they can have just as much fun in a Buick Special as a Century, for example, and do it for less money. More cars are fixed up, whether purely stock or somewhat "different", which helps the entire car hobby--period. When other investments have tanked, the "money people" will find places to put their money to make money. If you saw the really high prices of the Barrett-Jackson auction in AZ earlier this year, it was the investors instead of the strict hobbiests that were probably driving those higher prices and "feeding frenzy" bids. When the normal investments start offering better returns, the collector car market will flatten out again. A couple of years ago, there was a very neat article in one of the collector car magazines. It involved a '55 or '56 Buick Special 2-door sedan. It was a long-time family car that was fixed up for the high school son. The father/son team restored the car and did it in something of a period custom, but NO major body work, just different two-tone paint, different interior items, plus some extra underhood chrome and the requisite (for that time) 3x2 carb setup. They could just as easily have done it in a pure stock restoration, but that was not their particular taste. The OTHER situation is that by doing it that way, instead of a pure stock restoration, they ALSO made it more saleable in the future. It was a more special Special that way, whether to the family members that kept the memories of that car alive, but also to the new owners that would not need to make very many changes to it as they'd already been done. Hence, the car's better chance of survival in the future, other than a major wreck situation or similar. SO, where's the judgment call? Send it to the crusher as it was an old car with old brakes, old engine parts, hard-to-find tire sizes, or tattered interior? Let it rust behind the barn (how many have tried to buy a "behind the barn" car and been told "I'm going to restore it?")? Or make it into something that others would desire to own and still carry the great Buick styling and name into the future, even though it might not be "totally original"? Sure, preservation of "stock" cars is important, but so many of those are so "over-restored" that they are not accurate by any stretch of the imagination, so much so that they are deemed "accurate" because there are so many of them! Is THAT a much bigger indiscretion than customization? Personally, I applaud the Editor of The Bugle for including the modified Buicks in the publication, even if it's just one issue. It is a small and great indication that not all Buicks are preserved (and worth preserving) as completely stock vehicles. Yes, keeping the accurate (key word, "accurate") end-of-the-assembly line condition cars (of any kind) around is very necessary for future generations, but as those cars are increasingly relegated to museum status or "very limited driver" status, the ones that will generally survive in the open world will most probably be the ones that have been updated with more modern parts/technology in some way--whether it's radial tires, halogen headlights, FM and/or satellite radio systems or base coat/clearcoat paint techonolgy or synthetic lubricants. To me, these are reality issues that can be executed in something of "incognito" manners in many cases. As GMPARTSMAN stated, in the car business you HAVE to be cognizant of changing situations and times. That does NOT mean totally forgetting about the past, but being aware of where you've been (AND been through) as you chart the course into and plan for the future. That's "survival"! The comment of Tommy's associate that left the BCA as the older cars were being abandoned? I haven't seen that as a real situation, but my perception might not be the same as his. If anything, I would say that, at the present time, there might be a little too much emphasis on the older cars (as evidenced by National Meet Show Fields) and not enough on the Buicks of more recent manufacture (other than the great showing of Reattas!). We DO need to maintain the existing emphasis on the past as we also encourage partipation with the more "modern" Buicks of the later 1970s and newer--even if the majority of them might not be convertibles or hardtops. AND WHERE ARE THE 1950s and 1960s and 1970s STATION WAGONS???!!!!! Tommy might have some valid comments, even if their presentation might have been a little abrasive to some. We all have our own orientations on these issues. But it would seem that as the BCA is supposed to be the premier Buick club in the world, it should be inclusive of ALL Buicks and not specifically just a segment that each of us might be more interested in than other segments we might not care for. In the best interest of the Buick segment of the automotive hobby, it would seem that such an "all inclusive" orientation in the club publication should follow. We might not like some segments of the Buick hobby, but that does NOT mean they are not liked by others in the BCA. In many cases, "broadening horizons" can be a good situation. Just as the Straight 8-era articles might not be in my specific areas of interest, I might read them later to broaden my knowledge of those Buicks. The particular customized Buick (in The Bugle this month) has just as great of a legacy of its prior owners and its past as any stock Buick that might still be in the ownership of and cherished by the original owner's family. If it was "just a Buick", it might be that it would have added some iron content to the ground somewhere--or worse. It certainly would not have made it into a prestigeous car museum (Darryl Starbird was of the same genre as George Barris) for many people to enjoy and adore and possibly motivate them to do similar things in the future. Life is full of judgment calls. What happens to cars as they age depends on the judgment calls of their current owners or future owners (even if that includes a salvage yard operator). Many things are open for debate, the outcome of which might change due to many outside influences--some we can influence and others we can't influence or even forsee over the horizon. We might not like all of our extended or blood family members, but they are still family. As for screen names, the reason I'm using a screen name is that I desire that my comments be known as my own and not relate to any of the other organizations that my birth name might associate me with AND that my comments could not be construed to be "speaking for" or represent the views of those organizations. As such, the comments I make are mine alone. Yet my identity is not a total secret either. Thanks for your time and consideration. Now, let's put the needle on our "FUN METER" back up to the upper end of the scale! Enjoy! NTX5467

. . . key the music . . . "WE ARE FA-MI-LY" I realize there are some in the BCA (and other segments of the automotive hobby) that have somewhat inflexible orientations of the segments they might not agree with. I recall, from earlier times, some comments from the Flathead Ford V-8 group about how "wrong" it was to find a pristine, steel-bodied car and chop the top and make it into a "hot rod". And then a man showed up with one of those very cars at a weekend cruise spot--wearing a t-shirt with wording to the effect "Anybody can restore a car. It takes a man to chop one". And he was pretty stoutly built at about 6'3". So much for that! A friend had a '68 Camaro coupe that was a long-time race car. It was gutted and tubbed and roll-caged and still wore the factory blue paint. It was easy to see that the body never had been hit or repaired and that the roll cage had kept the quarter panels and top panels all straight as the day they were all welded together at the factory. It was remarked, after the value of restored Camaros began to escalate in the later times, that the car was "too nice" to make a race car out of, even if it had been a lowly (i.e., non-collectible) 250 six cylinder. And it really was "too nice" to end up in such a state, BUT just as with "saved" and customized cars, it was easily identifiable as a Camaro and that's all that mattered. Even if it was a stock-bodied race car, it was still making an impression on all that saw it of what great cars those Camaros were. So they might want one like it (for a street car) one day too! Just as in the case of that particular Camaro, when people find a cherry car for a project, they pounce upon it due to it's "desireability" and "straight" body, even if those attributes are not really necessary for what they intend to do. Same is true of restoration people and modifiers and racers. It is a very real fact that no more vintage vehicles are being made--except for the company that's tooling up to build new '69 Camaro convertible bodies (as was on the cover of HOT ROD magazine recently). It is unfortunate that many people "with money" will buy an older car and immediately start making it into their "dream car". It might be a different wheel/tire combination, engine upgrades, or even custom body work/paint. In some cases, this "dream car" will have less value when finished than it did before they did anything--but it's now their car and their money. A car that they will be very proud of, even if we might shake our heads at. I got my Bugle today and thumbed though it. I noticed the stunning custom Buick on the cover and the related article. I might not fully customized a car, but I know the additional work that usually goes into them and definitely appreciate that--especially if it's something of the calibre of that particular Buick. The "saving the car" scenario has been mentioned, but lets look at another related situation--parts availability. Let's go back to that '57 Buick in the salvage yard, except lets predate it about 15 years to when it was still sitting in the owner's driveway (or back yard). It was a car that held many memories but had evolved into the "extra" car of the family. But now the family was basically the "empty nesters" of the family, who still remembered when the paint was still shiney and the engine ran without smoking. A great car it was, but time and use had taken their tolls on the vehicle's physical attributes. Let's presume it resided in a state that requires yearly safety inspections too. So the owner took it to the inspection station for the annual inspection and it was found that the brakes did not work too well and the exhaust was leaking, not to mention the smoke from the tail pipe. It would not pass inspection without some work, so the owner went in search of somebody that would do the job. He went to various repair shops that did not want to do the work and probably laughed at him as he drove off. "You want to fix THAT??!!" they probably thought. He thought he might want to do some of the work himself, as he used to do, plus he still had some manuals for the car. So he went to the "large" auto supply and soon discovered that they had no parts listed for the car. "What a BUMMER", the owner probably thought. Knowing that the only other place for the car would be the salvage yard. No parts to fix it. No one that knows HOW to fix it. Will not pass inspection. Even if he could find somebody to work on it, he probably could not afford it. Although this owner was a loyal Buick owner and loved the car, there was no suspicion that any kind of Buicks-only club might exist. The whole "car club" deal never crossed his mind. Sure, he'd seen those hot rod magazines and such at the grocery store, but he never looked at them as "hot rods" were not an interest. So, with no further information on where to get parts, the only course of action that made sense was to scrap out the car. After all, it was considered to be "worthless" if it could not be made to run and drive legally. So, the car went to the salvage yard and we know the rest of the story. Now, if the owner had not given up quite so easily, some more research might have been done to find parts sources and even THIS CLUB. Not to mention looking at the many "old car" magazines and such at the larger newsstands. Or going to the weekend cruises (the owner's local newspaper did not have an "Antique Car" classified section) to seek out somebody with a similar brand car for information on parts and repairs. This devoted Buick owner had no inkling of the large support network for Buick vehicles that is in the vintage car hobby today, but a few hours of research and probably $20.00 worth of magazines might have given the information of what the car was really worth and where to get the needed parts to make it that way. Not to mention Internet searches! Many times, when the original parts are not available locally, or reasonably easy, the owners would look to what they had available and use that. That was part of the "birth" of hot rodding, using salvage yard engines (from the larger car lines that had larger displacement engines and stronger rear axles) to put where smaller engines used to be. THAT is just as much a part of the automotive heritage as completely stock "trailer queens" are today. Or using a fancier seat fabric to redo the upholstery in the car. Whether it's a "close match" or something completely different, is "something" better than springs poking up through the uncovered padding? If you're going to change something, why not do something creative for the same amount of money? Same with sound systems too. Hopefully, the end result enhances the vehicle in the eyes of the owner and others too. At some point in time, almost everybody in the car hobby has looked at what somebody has done to a car and wondered "What were they thinking?", whether it was lace-patterned paint in the late '60s, cutting up cherry cars to make race cars or customs, or putting an older body on a newer frame (and did a poor job of it). We can't tell people what not to do to their cars, but we can grumble about it as if they really care. Or "disown" them from our circle of friends. Or go up and tell them what a big mistake they made--to their face. And WHAT would it solve? Nothing. WHAT would it make other similar enthusiasts look like? Not good, at least to the person that's just been chastised. Now, one other thing . . . WHERE in the BCA Mission Statement does it say anything about "stock" Buicks per se? I'm aware of the judging issues in the 400 Point System, but that's not part of the Mission Statement. I'd also like to know where it says "antique Buick" in that Mission Statement too! Even if these particular things are not in the Mission Statement, it apperas that many perceive them to be. Sure, the National Meets are judged by the 400 Point System that requires a significant "end of the assembly line" condition to really win any awards, but the BCA is not specifically designed to just have vehicles in it that are "400 Point Capable". Yet that is perceived to be "the way it is", and has been since the early days of the club. Remember the bio of the late Greg Fallowfield that was in The Bugle a couple of years ago? One of the things mentioned about his cars was that he had a Buick street rod with a TPI Corvette engine in it, backed up by a later model GM automatic transmission. As "BCA #1", he held a special place in the history of this organization. Considering all of the "gotta be stock" and "antique" dialogues I'd heard over the years with respect to the BCA, I would have suspected that Mr. Fallowfield would have only had "end of the assembly line" condition vehicles, but that does not appear to be completely the case. I'll certainly admit that I admire an owner (of any vintage vehicle) that has taken the time to research (vehicles and restoration supplies), orchestrate, and execute a completely correct "frame off" restoration or a reconstruction of a particular vehicle--doesn't matter if it's a "non-collectible" vehicle or a highly sought after car--BECAUSE I know the amount of time it takes to make that happen PLUS resist the option of taking the easy way out and changing something that's not readily available or less expensive to do. Even when I see a really nice vehicle that's been restored, but I see they have put an inexpensive "auto supply" battery in it (rather than seek out a restoration battery or at least one made by the vehicle's manufacturer), it makes me wonder just what other corners they "cut" when they did the car! But I also know that some enhancements/improvements can be made "incognito" to engines and other parts of the vehicle without affecting the cosmetics of the vehicle too. Some things have improved over the years with improved designs, which are enough better to make chasing that rare NOS date-coded original part something that the "trailer queen" people might better benefit from on their vehicle. By the same token, I also appreciate a well-designed/orchestrated/assembled "modified" vehicle. Whether it be a "Day Two Restoration" or a full custom or a nice Street Rod or Street Machine. Granted, everybody has their own tolerance of what they like in vehicles and I certainly respect that. To me, it's a far worse sin to do something to a vehicle and "hack it up" under the skin than to change something and do a stellar job of what is done. NO vehicle deserves a "hatchet job", whether it's a restoration (I've seen some of those) or a modified vehicle (and some of those too!). key the music again . . . "WE ARE FA-MI-LY" Now, let's all have fun with cars and trucks! There's enough room for everybody in this club and in the vehicle hobby. A big happy family! Enjoy to the limit of your tolerance (or your finances and/or the tolerance of your spouse--as applicable)! Let's all have fun! NTX5467

hhhhmmmmmmm . . . . . . had not heard anything other than Chevrolets referred to as "tri-five" . . . . . . . and what's that dialogue "come along with us"??????? sounds like "somebody's going somewhere" . . . . . to return when????????? yep . . . "masterplan" EXPOSED! Good work, Willie! Not to mention drawing out those "other signals" too! LOL Enjoy! NTX5467