NTX5467

The knock sensor will take care of lower octane fuels. When something more than 87 R+M/2 posted octane is spec'd, it means the system is calibrated to produce more power with the higher octane fuel, but the detonation sensor will keep detonation from happening. There's an excellent commentary on this very subject on one of the performance websites (plus tips on how to successfully drag race GM fwd cars and how to get them to run faster than they normally would!). Seems like it was at www.zzperformance.com? There's lots of information on how and when and how much the spark is retarded when just one detonation rattle is sensed by the sensor. Really neat stuff! Enjoy! NTX5467

In 1966, the first year for the 440 V-8 and the first year no 300 letter car was in the mix, you could order a regular Chrysler 300 with buckets and console in a two door hardtop or convertible (I think even in a 4-door too). Basically, it might look similar inside to the prior year's 300-L, but was just a 300. The upgrade camshaft did not appear until the 1967 model year, along with the high-rise exhaust manifolds and a few other things that made the GTX-style 375 horsepower motor different than the normal 350 horsepower 440. There is a road test of a 1966 Chrysler 300 (what they might have called 300-M if it'd been a continuation of that earlier letter series) with a 440 TNT and such. I recall them saying the "TNT" meant "twin snorkles" and "twin exhaust", referring to the dual snorkle air cleaner and the factory dual exhaust. There was also a TNT air cleaner pie pan too. The fact that the normal camshaft was used is the reason for the 365 horsepower rating that year. In 1967, the hp cam and hp exhaust manifolds were added to the mix for 375 horsepower. Maybe a different carb too, depending on whether it was a federal or California emissions car. As the TNT Package was an option, there should be a corresponding sales code on the data plate under the hood, on the driver's side inner fender. The engine code in the VIN would be something to check on too, but the sales code should nail it down as to "regular" or "TNT", I suspect. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

The whole idea of the A.I.R. pump is to further burn-off hydrocarbons that might have been left unburned in the combustion chamber by adding more air to the exhaust. It might take a few more horsepower to run, but you'd probably not know it in normal driving. I believe that the earlier systems might have been calibrated just a hair richer to make them work better, but don't know that for sure. GM's formal name for the system was "Air Injection Reactor" system. Ford called their similar system "ThermActor". There was an article in CAR LIFE magazine in the late '60s about the new air injection systems. One comment was that as the injection of air into the exhaust manifolds to "keep the fire going outside of the combustion chamber" could result in the exhaust systems having more back pressure (more hot gas in the same diameter exhaust pipes). The theory sounds credible, but I don't know if anyone ever tested it out. In any of the air injection systems, there will be check valves that keep the hot exhaust where it needs to be in that system--in the exhaust system. These check valves prevent the heat of the exhaust from getting back toward the switching valve and pump hoses/pipes, plus the air being pumped through them will help keep them cool too. When the valve(s) fail, for whatever reason, the manifold that attaches to the exhaust manifold can deteriorate quickly and leak (even the chrome plated ones end up with just a thin layer of plating holding them together when this happens) and let exhaust heat progressively move into the upstream areas of the system. As for air pollution issues, I remember seeing a feature car in a hot rod magazine with an air pump. Seems it had a smaller pulley on the pump so that it helped dilute the exhaust output and made it "street legal" in that state. I would definitely check your state vehicle inspection/emissions statutes to see what they might be and how your vehicle might be affected by them. This would be a key issue of whether you could take it off or not, I suspect. If you took the belt off and left everything else intact, sooner or later the check valves will fail and cause problems (some of which I mentioned above, which I've seen happen on later model vehicles). In the case of some mid-'80s GM cars I've seen where the valves failed, if left alone, the heat would melt the plastic switching valve and cause a "thermal event" underhood. As most of the earlier systems had rubber hoses in them, similar issues. If you took the system off, yet the state inspection people claimed the system needed to be there, that's another issue. Usually, if the exhaust manifold has some plugs in it, that's a dead giveaway that something in the system has been altered and just cause for them to get out their "book" to see what might be missing. And then there's the long-standing federal statutes on disabling any emissions control hardware. Even if you could sneak it by with an age or limited use exemption, please make sure you have the vehicle running as good as it can be. Don't forget to plug off any vacuum lines that might have been between the diverter valve and the carburetor/intake manifold if you remove the system. I suspect the pump could be obtained in the remanufactured version. Diverter valve might be harder to find, just as the air pump distribution manifold for each exhaust manifold, yet you might be able to adapt something from a later model (similar) engine with an air pump on it too. I doubt seriously that any mechanical engine problems would result from the removal of the system, but I would recommend either "no pump equipment" or "functioning pump equipment"--your judgment call. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

I know kerosene was used in earlier times to clean oily parts, but then people used to use gasoline for similar things too. In those earlier times too, people did use some things that could cause problems as cleaning agents just because it was "what they had around at the time" and not because they were good cleaners per se. Anything that's flammable always carries the possibility of causing a fire, even if appropriate safety precautions are taken. Decreasing that risk is always a good thing. In modern times, after getting the oil and residue out of the air cleaner sump and cleaning the mesh section, I think I'd use some of the more modern degreasers to do the final cleaning. They usually work much faster than kerosene would, I suspect. Misting some K&N Filter Oil or WD-40 (or similar) on the mesh section might be an option to put some oil back into the mesh before it might dry out. Proper disposal of the oil and residue removed from the filter is necessary also. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Packard makes some realistic points. All many of our computerized service tools of modern times are doing the same things that used to be done "analog" in earlier times. That includes wheel balancing and wheel alignment, to name a few. The current batch of computerized wheel balancers can do a much more accurate job than in prior times, though. But, if the tire does not have any problems, a well-finessed bubble balance can work just a well now as it did in the 1960s. I also suspect that one reason the high speed spin balancers went away, other than operator issues, might well have been liability issues as we all know what those little pebbles in the tire tread will do when the wheel spins fast enough. What these computerized machines do is allow the jobs to be done much more efficiently and productively. Not to mention have a higher degree of accuracy that ANY operator should be able to achieve. Many of us used to spend lots of time waiting for the tires to be rotated and bubble balanced at the old service stations. Life usually moves as a faster pace now and customers still demand excellence in a shorter time frame. As for technician pay, that depends on the area of the country. From what I've seen of late, the tech pay mentioned is pretty much "median". Sure, we'd all like to make more money for the same work (or less!), but the technician unions are NOT the silver bullet many let on like they are and do tend to change the techs' playing field of sorts. There are also many types of labor rate plans too, which any dealership might use to make money with. How that is matrixed is up to those at the particular dealership. As for the gap between charged labor rates and tech pay, that "cushion" goes to fund LOTS of things in the service department. The SPX Special Tool Program is one thing that is more expensive than many lay people might suspect, for example, and you HAVE to have some of those tools for particular vehicles yet there are many that will seldom be used. Then there's the other shop equipment, utility bills, insurance, shop vehicles, pushers, battery jumpers, freon recovery machines, AND the support people that keep the service drive running. The service dept usually has one of the higher gross profits in the dealership, but it can also loose money if expenses get out of whack. As for maintenance schedules? You start with two--the GM "normal" and the GM "severe use" schedules. Many people unknowingly are much more toward the "severe use" than they might suspect, if you read the definitions in the maintenance schedule. Then, the dealership can offer their own recommended maintenance schedule. This is where it can get a little "gray area". Some of the maintenance intervals might be closer together than what the "normal" GM recommendations might be plus include other things not in the GM literature. Key thing is to know enough about your vehicle and such to be able to pick and choose from these dealer recommendations. Sure, it's extra profits but there can also be some market-based recommendations that are better to heed in the long run. As for dealership techs "over-selling" repairs. It's a little different world in the dealership than in a private shop, sometimes. From my orientation, I would expect the dealership techs to be more trained than those in a private shop, but that's not always the case, plus know more about the vehicle they are repairing (if it's a new enough vehicle for the current GM Training courses to cover). In short, if there's a problem that no one else can fix, the dealership techs OUGHT to be able to get it done, especially with the direct links to GM Tech Assistance and Engineering they have via phone, Internet, etc. Private shops and dealerships alike have access to ALLDATA, but that's just the tip of the iceberg of sorts. In that "closest thing to the factory" orientation (for parts and service), then I'd hold the dealership people to a higher standard than I might a private shop--not that some private shops might be worthy of that too. For example, if you brought a vehicle in and a tech noted something getting ready to fail, he might note in on the repair order and the owner would be asked if they wanted to get it repaired. As it hadn't failed yet, the owner would probably decline the repair. Or the tech could see it getting ready to happen, but knowing it still had a little life left, he might not mention it. Either way, the customer leaves and goes about their life. If the failure happens next week, the vehicle might well end up near a private shop. In the course of the conversation, the private shop's tech and the customer touch on the fact that the vehicle was in a dealership just last week. So, the private shop tech might well comment that "They should have seen that coming and said something about it". If nothing was mentioned at the dealership, then the customer can think better of the private shop for seeing the impending failure, but if it was mentioned at the dealership (if the customer admits to knowing it was) and that was noted in the later conversation, then the private shop tech knows that he's not the "savior" and that his best defense is doing a good job at a reasonable price--or at least cheaper than it might have been at the dealership. So, when and if a dealership tech presents a customer with a laundry list of suggested repairs, it might be better to request an explanation instead of just writing it off as "overselling" or whatever. It IS always the customer's decision to approve or decline repairs at ANY repair shop--but at some point in time, something's going to break and if you're already at a repair facility you trust, it might be cheaper and easier to get it done then instead of paying a tow bill later (in some cases, depending on what the failure was). As for "How long U-joints are supposed to last?" . . . I would hope that U-joints might last longer than what they did on your vehicle, but there can be other factors involved too. But the KEY THING is to not wait until you're ready to pay the repair bill to start trying to bargain the price down--the price you've ALREADY approved. This is where a known and steady customer can have an advantage over someone that is not known to the dealership people. Besides, when that factory warranty ends, it ends. Some "special adjustments" might be made, but that's solely up to the dealership operatives (who know how many other times they've seen similar failures) who would also know what service bulletins that GM has put out on what kinds of issues. Of course, any requests for "help on the price" should be made in a polite and non-confrontational manner. Packard, I think I'd found the money and bought that little dealership! Lots of possibilities, plus with all of the neat stuff GM's going to have on the ground in the near future, you could have some fun and make some money too, plus indulge your older car orientations too. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

In the world of HUMMER, the big sales facilities are definitely part of the situation, in the long run, but it has also been noted that they expect the stand-alone stores to only sell about 12 H1s a year. That leaves the volume to the H2 models, plus the upcoming H3s. Now, what smart dealers to is put another facility on the same real estate. Like an expanded wholesale parts operation, for example. That way, Hummer sales aren't the only thing paying for the facility. These dealers were pretty much hand-picked via many criteria. Undoubtedly, financial stability was one of them too. Most already have GM franchises near where their Hummer facility is. The OTHER thing is that if you can afford the price of a Hummer, fuel economy is not a prime consideration. Even on the cross country deal that Motor Trend did, it barely averaged 12mpg. To me, I would have hoped for more like 15 on the highway, but with those big tires with those tall sidewalls and off-road style tread, plus "brick" aerodynamics, 12mpg is pretty respectible and is probably not that much less than what a 3/4 ton Chevy pickup would get under similar situations. In other words, if you can afford to buy the vehicle, you can afford the fuel too. Similarly, if you can afford the payments on a $40K+ Suburban or $50K+ Escalade or similar Ford products, that usually indicates a pretty well-off lifestyle and a job to support such. Also, don't forget that when that 15mpg vehicle is carrying 3 people, that's like a small, single vehicle getting 45mpg with one person in it (basically the hybrids and such that everyone's all excited about). Those hybrids might have some larger EPA mileage numbers on the windowsticker, but those EPA tests are run with the a/c turned OFF. A/c use decreases those numbers significantly, from what I understand. Therefore, if you have one of those vehicles, only use it when you can take others with you--as a general rule--as that makes the people/miles/gallon much more inline with the smaller vehicles that only have one person in them. Again, if you can afford the vehicle and the lifestyle it purports, then there is enough affluence to pay the fuel bills too. As for the blessed "boycott on ________" situation. As Matt noted, not everyone buys fuel every day. In that orientation, it would need to be a multi-day, continuous boycott to make any real impact. BUT the other side issue is just how the refineries would react. Of course, less demand meand they need less people to work and that would mean less production to maintain appropriate reserves of product. So they'd scale back production and then when everyone said "To heck with this" and started driving as they used to, then that would spike demand and we all know what happens when supply are decreased and demand increases--prices go up higher than they would normally be. Again, more "windfall profits" for the oil companies. SO, all of these boycott deals need to think about three steps further than what they already are instead of being quite to simplistic in their orientation and approach. They just might end up costing themselves more money! And what about people away from home on leisure or business trips. Remember that more companies started wanting people to drive rather than fly after 9/11? Those people probably are buying more than one tank of fuel per day. If they decided to go along with the "No Fuel Day", then they'd have to spend an extra day in a hotel. What would be least expensive? Fuel cost or running up the expense account (if there is one!) another $80+ per trip? Those danged side issues strike again! Sure, there are some things we all could do to save fuel expenses. One is being more with regards to planning how and where we drive, to make one trip do the same thing as several shorter trips. Of course, tire pressure is another maintenance item. Past that, most of everything we could do would be marginal. Not that all of those things together might not make a difference, but look at just how much actual fuel you'd save by getting 3 more mpg and being uncomfortable and if it's really worth it to you. Right now, the main thing is watching the fuel prices on the various stations. What was less expensive one day might not be the next day. The pattern is to find a cheaper private brand outlet and then look for a name brand outlet near by. That usually gets the best pricing as the name brand will usually try to get close to the private brand pricing. But even that's no guarantee. About the only way to really save is to have a MasterCard (or similar) that has an automatic fuel savings built into it (like the earlier and current Shell MasterCards too, with a 3% rebate on fuel purchases). You can also get some hints from the various fuel cost websites (MSN has one on their front page, for example) for your area--some are more accurate than others. So, best thing we can do is try to get through this whole deal and quit pointing fingers as to why it's happening. This is one issue where there are no simple answers to a complex chain of events that are running the price of fuel up (yet diesel is pretty much unchanged; look at those larger light truck vehicles and see how many of them are diesels!). Sure, we can change how we do things, but past history suggests that whatever we might save now will be made up for later as prices will probably rise to where we're paying the same as we would have been paying before we tried to conserve. How many of y'all own stock, or have shares in a pension play with investment options, in the oil industry? Plus, if YOU were running the oil companies, how would YOU be doing things? Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Just as in the past, if the shop tools are purchased through the GM Shop Equipment program, there can be some financing considerations and possibly rebates too. GM does have specs as to what they recommend be purchased too. Possibly the best way to relate "road force variation" might be to remember in the prior times, there would be tires that would bubble balance perfectly and still have vibrations at highway speeds (even with tire/wheel runout in specs). Back then, it was attributed to "hard spots" in the casing or marginally well done overlaps of the cords in the casings. Usually, those tires went on the rear wheels, if possible. With no large and heavy rear differential back there any more (except on the genuine truck chassis vehicles, not counting the IRS Ford SUVs), every wheel needs to be in perfect static and rolling balance. If there is a "hard spot" in the casing, it will cause the vibration perceived to be imbalance. With no "classic" differential in the rear to help dampen those vibrations, putting those tires on the rear is not an option as it was in the past. GM has specs for road force variation for cars and also for truck chassis vehicles. If the tire/wheel combination "at best" is still out of spec, then with GM covering the tires as a regular part of their vehicle warranty, a new tire is ordered up through the correct GM supply channels. I don't know that modern customers are any more critical of wheel balance issues, but with the greater number of allegedly smooth Interstate highways and increasing vehicle costs, it can be more of an issue. When the tire is placed on the balancer, the balancer spins the tire against a rolling surface that obviously has some force measuring device internal to it. It does this for a few revolutions to make sure everything is fully seated on the rim. Then it spins the tire/wheel for balance. At the end of its program, it displays the road force and balance results on the touch screen. Just like the earlier computer balancers, it also displays where the problem areas are so the tire can be moved on the wheel and then rechecked. If the tire/wheel combination can't be made to be in spec for road force, then a new tire is ordered. The other concern is that tires usually are wider than in the past and also of a somewhat larger diameter. Basically, more weight at the outer area of things, which might also make balancing by earlier methods less effective. At one point in time, there were some issues with the OEM tires on Escalades not holding balance. It was finally determined that this was caused by the tire moving on the chrome wheel as the vehicle drove down the road. Usually took about 10 miles of freeway driving for this to happen (after passing all road force and balance specs). No real fix, but when the Michelin LTXs were installed on the same wheels, the beads seated with a more solid "thunk" than the OEM tires and that ended the problem. It, like other service issues, seemed to be in a cycle of sorts. Luckily, the Texas Highway Department had just laid some new smooooth asphalt on the adjacent Interstate so it made for a good test stretch of road. It's interesting that we have had a couple of cycles where we replaced one brand of tire on one particular model. Then those problems seemed to go away. Before anyone gets too excited about talking about changing to Michelins, we warrantied several sets of Symmetrys on DeVilles too, so they are not immune either. In the earlier times too, the on-the-car spin balancers were the premium way to do high speed tire balance. I remember the old Stewart-Warner Alemite strobe balancers being used for that sort of thing (including on the highway partrol cars). It is still a more comprehensive way of doing things, but also required redoing when that wheel was moved to another place on the vehicle or was remounted without marking its relative position on the wheel hub. There was also another variation that Hunter built where you clamped a hub on the wheel and moved weights internally as the wheel spun (replicating those placements with wheel weights later). With the greater concern of shop safety -- plus no one really knowing how to operate the high speed spin balancers any more -- and the increased intervals for tire rotation, this type of balancing has pretty much vanished. I also suspect that manufacturing tolerances for the balance of axles, brake rotors, brake drums, etc. have also increased as the technology of electronic scales has increased also. In those earlier times, you gauged a tire's quality by the amount of weight that had to be used to balance it. Sure was nice to see those old Atlas Plycrons balance with not even 1/2 ounce on each wheel! Enjoy! NTX5467

Check the Old Cars Price Guide (available quarterly at the larger newsstands) for possible pricing. Do NOT overexagerate the vehicle condition either, but you might aim a little high and then negotiate downward. The Mopar Collector's Guide and Hemmings Motor News are two places to advertise it, plus ads in several metro area news papers (weekend editions only), might be good places to start. There's also the Old Car Trader and several online places to sell cars. The Old Car Trader is part of a national chain of Auto Trader weekly publications so that can network your ad pretty effectively. Just be firm about "Cash ONLY" and don't "give it away" either. DO make sure you have all of your paperwork in order to expedite the ownership transfer when that time comes. If you don't have a title for the vehicle, and it's registered to you, then apply for a "lost" or "replacement" title at your local motor vehicle department branch office. Doing all of that BEFORE the ad comes out will make everyone feel better about the transaction. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

It seems that the Prestolite dual point (cast iron housing) distributor was used on other Chrysler high performance 4bbl V-8s into the later 1960s. After that, the aluminum housing Chrysler dual point was used until the later electronic systems became available in the early 1970s. Seems like the Prestolite contact point set is different than the Chrysler point set, so if you find later model listings for that same point set, that might also generate a later application that might also generate a vacuum advance unit that was available (hopefully). As for a part number, there might be something stamped or cast into the unit you have, but by this point in time, whatever you get will most possibly be a "generic" unit with a general advance curve. If it's one with a screw on front vacuum port, then you can alter the rate of advance by shimming or unshimming the spring in there. In other situations where they are sealed, there are some that have an adjustment screw inside, that is worked by an Allen wrench that is just small enough to go into the vacuum port (where the vac advance vacuum hose slides on). If the auto supply people have no luck (I suspect they'll have to get a genuine paper book out for the older models!), then you might pick up a copy of one of the Mopar magazines (Mopar Action or Mopar Muscle or Mopar Collector's Guide--most are sold at larger newsstands and the book store chains) or Hemmings Motor News. Most everyone that has NOS or replacement parts has an ad in those magazines. On the other side of things, it's HIGHLY possible that your points will not set correctly due to wear on the breaker cam contact lobes (on the distributor shaft, what the points' rubbing block rides on to open and close the points). I bought a used 440-6bbl distributor years ago and put it into my '67 Chrysler 383 4bbl (with the appropriate Mopar Performance adapter) in the hopes of a little better performance from the longer dwell of the dual point system. I discovered that when the points were gapped to spec, the dwell reading was not in the desired spec area. Tweaking was really no help either. One night, I pulled it out and put a dial indicator on the points and checked each individual lobe in an effort to hopefully make sure the point gap was correct. What I found was more lobe-to-lobe variation than I desired to find. I also determined that even if the gaps were set (generally) to a median value, the dwell would not be enough greater than what a single point would yield to be worth the effort. I also discovered that many modern point sets do not contain the little vial of point lube grease (this was in the later 1980s). At that timeframe, many people who had point ignition systems were complaining about their points not lasting "anytime", so they were all headed toward "having to" convert to electronic ignition. So, if the lobes on your distributor are a little rounded off or worn (as I suspect they are), getting a new shaft from a reman facility might also be something to look for, or a reman Prestolite distributor (the part number tag screws on so it can be changed for cosmetic reasons, just as the advance weights/springs can be swapped into the fresher distributor from your existing unit. That way, you'll end up with a fresh shaft and bushings and your existing advance curve. The reman unit might also come with a new vac advance unit too. There are advantages to staying with the point ignition system. One big one is that it takes about 8 volts to fire the plugs on the Chrysler electronic ignition and about 10 volts with the Orange Box supplied with the Chrysler conversion kit. Meaning . . . points will tolerate a weaker battery to start the vehicle than the electronic control box will for that system. I've seen that happen, too. On the other side of things, it's pretty easy to install the Chrysler Mopar Performance electronic ignition conversion kit. Contrary to what they claim, you can use your existing voltage regulator (do NOT use the higher voltage Mopar Performance unit!), which I'm doing on my '67 Chrysler. I also spliced the harness going to the control box so I could hide it out of sight and run the extended harness along with another existing harness under the hood. If done with finesse, the biggest thing that will be seen is the extra wire coming out of the distributor. In the Mopar hobby, the conversion to electronic ignition is kind of an accepted modification that no body really gets excited about. I'm not sure about the 300 Club people, though. If you have any questions about my experiences with the conversion on my '67 Chrysler, please email me direct. Only thing is that a fully charged battery is more important than with points. The Chrylser kit comes complete with everything needed (just get a regular control box and don't use the orange box) and follow the instructions. Many hobby people like the Pertronix unit too, but to me the main advantage of the Chrysler kit is that it is fully production based (all the way up to about '78 or so) so parts should be more available when the time comes, if it ever does. I'm not sure where the "new" distributor you mentioned was coming from, but if it is really NOS, then it should be worth that much money. If it's a reman for that price, that would be a different situation to me. By shopping around, the Chrysler kit can be had for about $175.00 or so, depending on who has it. By the same token, if you're near a large metro area with some "embedded" old parts stores, they might have something in their dusty back room that you could use (as in a reman distributor, possibly) or possibly an advance unit. FIRST hurdle would be finding someone that knew what a point distributor was, much less "Prestolite". I believe there are some vendor listings in the Online Imperial Club website that might be helpful. If you have any other questions on that conversion, email me direct. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Regarding DEXCOOL, GM's own internal survey of returning lease vehicles determined that lack of maintenance is what caused most of the problems, plus people putting green in with the orange and getting "mud". In those cases, there is a TSB out on how to correct those problems. Some vehicles tended to be worse than others too. In the shop, we saw many more S-10s with those issues (which was the primary coverage of the TSB). Scenario -- coolant level drops due to lack of maintenance or a weak radiator cap. One reason most new GM vehicles have a "Low Coolant" light on them now, even pre-DEX in some cases. Although green is supposed to be compatible with orange in "emergency situations" and flushed and refilled with orange (to maintain the advantages of DEXCOOL) as soon as possible, few owners do that thinking "It's all the same, just a different color" so then they suddenly have cooling system/heater operation problems that could have been avoided in the first place. With the demise/marked decrease of the full service gasoline station, hoods don't get raised nearly as much as they probably should, whether by a dealer technican during a scheduled oil change or the owner (if they might do their own maintenance). In reality, unless the windshield washer fluid runs low or some other warning light comes on, there's usually no real reason to raise the hood between scheduled maintenance visits anyway. The comment about a typical Buick owner's demographics and their approach to car care might be realistic in some cases, but the same basic vehicle architecture is typically shared with other GM divisions too. The configuration of modern air induction systems is nothing like it used to be. Lots of convoluted tubes and resonators and other things to make them work quietly and somewhat efficiently (i.e., more things to take off to get to the job at hand). Personally, I'd rather deal with those things than a mass of vacuum lines from an '80s V-8 engine (an Olds 307 V-8 maybe??). Even the older cars were not easy to work on in all situations. Remember the Pontiac V-8 ('65 era) whose #2 spark plug was buried under the a/c compressor bracket (one mechanic called it "a 50,000 mile spark plug)? Or the Pontiac Grand Prix ('77 era) starter cable that ran from one side of the car, under the front of the motor, and then to the starter? Or the old "in chassis" overhauls and re-bore jobs where the boring bar could not bore the rear cylinder as the cowl was in the way? Buicks, Chevrolets, Oldsmobiles, Fords, Chryslers, imports--they've all had some of these things from time to time. In some cases, modern vehicles are better than the older ones. How much more maintenance did the older vehicles require compared to modern vehicles, just to last 80,000 miles before they needed major repairs? Just some thoughts, NTX5467

The CVT has been around since the early '60s or somewhere back then, but it was in a lower powered little car in Holland (DAF?). The main reason for it to happen again is not for performance, but efficiency. We all know that combustion engines have a particular rpm range where they are more efficient than at other rpms. The idea of the CVT is to put the engine in a particular rpm range and keep it there as the CVT changes the gear ratios to accelerate the vehicle. At the present time, possibly the highest performance CVT is in some Audis, which tended to give little fanfare to it when they introduced their CVT a few years ago. Personally, I tend to like gears to transfer torque rather than a steel cable running between two pulleys. Undoubtedly, the science behind CVTs will progress into the future, but I don't look for it to be behind really high torque engines. I haven't heard of the Honda deal, but Hydrostatic Drive has been around since the middle '60s and THAT's a better possibility for higher power applications. I seem to recall it has been used on some earthmoving applications, but I could be incorrect in that. Once you get the hydraulic fluid flowing to each wheel, using some of that fluid to also do the suspension job might not be far behind (HydroLastic suspension on the last year or so of the original Mini Cooper?). Enjoy! NTX5467

With all due respect, I'm not going to doubt the 430 fuel economy as I was not around any of them on the road. I do know that my uncle's '68 LeSabre 350-2bbl did right at 20mpg on a trip on I-20 in West Texas with 4 people aboard and the a/c keeping everyone comfortable one summer day (it also had the 2-speed automatic). I also was around several '72 era Olds 350-4bbl Cutlasses that, when "desmogged" per a popular manual back then, they'd suddenly and consistently do 20+mpg on the road (back when they were new cars). Many of the later Olds 307 4bbls in the midsize Bonnevilles and full size LeSabres in those middle '80s time frames typically would hit middle 20mpg numbers on highway runs. My '77 Camaro with the original 305-2bbl and 2.56 rear axle ratio would only do 22mpg on the road w/o the a/c running (cruising in the 60mph range) with my daily use averaging 17.66mpg. From what I remember of that '60s era, most all of the "standard V-8" cars with 2bbl carbs would normally do 16-19mpg on a freeway run with daily averages dropping a little, depending on use and driving routine. In that realm, it included the small block Fords, Chevies, Mopar engines plus the big block 2bbls in the larger cars too. Some were a little more and some were a little less, but that was generally where I remember things being. The only Chrysler New Yorkers with a 318 were the last generation of rear wheel drive New Yorkers and Fifth Avenues (based on the Aspen-Volare platform) and the '79-'81 New Yorkers (based on the original '75 Cordoba/mid-size platform). Big Block Chrysler engines started out at 350 cid in '58 and grew to 361, 383, 400, 413, 426 Wedge, 426 HEMI, and 440 through the years. There was an earlier 318, the original Chrysler A-block from the 1955+ time frame that was called "Wide Block 318", but that engine family ended with the '65 cars. Fuel economy is a highly variable situation, but some general trends can exist. It's also possible for some engine/carb/axle ratio/body combinations to be better than others too, even when they really shouldn't be--but we do know they do happen that way. When all of the 455 GM engines were done, many were basically stroked versions of their earlier engine sizes. In many cases, the stroke length got real close to the diameter of the cylinder bore and, in the process, might have degraded some of the relationships of the earlier engines, not to mention the loss of efficiency of going to lower compression ratios. As each of those engines were designed by different groups and used some differing design orientations, some seemed to work better than others (like the 454 Chevy and it's somewhat unusual appetite for fuel and oil, compared to similar sized Buicks or Oldsmobiles). Emission controls also conspired to possibly keep the 455s from being all they might have been if they'd been produced 10 years earlier too. Main thing that we, as hobbiests, need to do is make sure that all of our vehicles are running as efficiently as possible, putting out as few pollutants as possible, and keep the maintanance done so that all of the dialogue that's been put out about our older cars being driven less, being better maintained, and such is really true. "Driven less" means in relationship a daily driver car that might usually be a newer model vehicle and see something like 10,000 miles or more per year. By the way, the '60s+ vehicles are many of my favorites. Getting out of high school in '70 put me right in the middle of some of the neatest vehicles ever to put rubber on the road. Lots of neat stuff built from the middle '50s on up to the late '70s years, just that you had to look a little harder for them as the years progressed into the later '70s and early '80s. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

You did well, "86"! I concur, it's not specifically about power but how that power relates to the weight of the vehicle it's pulling/pushing around. I also concur with the statement about "Buick Torque" and the fact that it happened at useable rpm ranges, even with the 3800 V-6. Obviously, the 3800 has more power in it waiting to get out, as the bolt-on supercharger for the 3800 powered Camaro/Firebirds is supposed to be worth an extra 100 horsepower just by itself and as the Buick Turbo enthusiasts have also proven with their vehciles too. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Car companies, "Yes". Oil companies, "Yes". Appliance companies, "Yes". Tire companies, "Yes". Air filter, oil filter, and spark plug companies, "Yes". Lots of things used to be free-standing business entities that are now part of conglomerates. Some were good synergistic combinations and others suited the power orientations of CEOs or whomever. Some were big buying out little, but keeping the little brand and expanding it product and innovation wise, which made good chemistry for those products. Somehow, I suspect we might have been better off with the "old way" sometimes, but the key is where the economies of scale really worked to make a better entity rather than "The Biggest __________". For the record, the New Process Gear company, which built 4 wheel drive transfer cases and the old "Granny Gear" truck 4-speeds was a joint venture, even back then. Several other such joint ventures have been around in more recent times, such as the GM-Toyota NUMMI production facility in CA that built the latter-day Chevy Nova and other GEO vehicles. Not quite the same thing as GMPowertrain selling 5-speed automatics to BMW for their 3-series cars. On that new 6-speed joint venture automatic, I wonder what they'll use for ATF? Dexron III, Mercon V, or something else? Enjoy! NTX5467

Key thing might be if that company has its own chroming operation or sends them out to a different place to get the chroming done. With the tigthening restrictions of the EPA in the past decades, many smaller chrome shops went out of business or scaled back from what they were doing previously. Therefore, fewer large chrome shops in the country. On a related note, if they do send the chroming out to be done, the larger the batch that is sent the better the pricing. From what I recall, it costs the same for a small batch as it does a larger batch--not by the piece, typically. It might be wise to make a friendly inquiry to see how things are coming and what the delays might be caused by. At this point, NOT being irate can be a plus as they still have your items, somewhere. A side issue might be that, if they have to send the stuff out, they might not want to admit to that little fact with the suspicion that you'll take the stuff to the other place yourself, resulting in lost revenue for the company. If your items are in a larger batch waiting to be "made up", they you could request to see it. Again, in a non-confrontational manner. How they react to your inquiry can have many signals in it also! Hopefully your worst fears will not be real. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

The support of the General Motors and Buick organizations to the "long term owners" of Reattas is actually no worse that it is for any other GM vehicle of that time frame or speciality vehicle. The Riviera connection actually helps in many respects, but similar Rivieras were just as durable as anything else GM built back then. Comparing a Reatta to a Mustang, in a totally different market segment? Not quite the same thing regardless of whether the vehicles were of similar size. The quote from Ed Mertz is very similar to what he said in the excellent audiovisual presentation that was made at the BCA Meet in Flint in the later 1980s. EXCEPT for a few things he noted. First thing was illustrated with the Ventiports from a '55 or so Roadmaster, using them as the centerpiece of the word "Smoooooth" to describe Buicks. "Powerful" was used to describe Buicks too, BUT there was also a picture of a Black Regal GN with a big red circle with a slash through it with the explanation "No more 'boy racer' Buicks". To elaborate, the Buick Heritage was for powerful, smooth, mature, and substantial vehicles. That meant quality materials in construction backed up by higher quality engineering than other similar vehicles had/used. Buicks might not have been the fastest thing away from a red light (compared to some Chevy V-8s with deep rear axle gears, for example), but their engines were designed for smooth and powerful performance well past the normal driving speed ranges. In one of their yearly new model "annuals", Motor Trend mentioned the Nailhead V-8 (a 401 in a '65 Skylark GS in this case) that had excellent torque response well past the 100 mph range out on the road. Being "mature" vehicles meant that while stop light acceleration was important, what happened on the open road was typically more important than how fast the 1/4 mile was covered. Of course, with the two speed automatics of that era, a broad torque band was necessary for good high gear performance after passing gear was used up. Remember, too, that there were still many "two lane blacktops" in the country back then too, which meant that passing gear performance needed to be pretty good. Although the Super Turbine 300 (two speed automatics, usually with the SwitchPitch converter in the earlier years, as I recall) were used for a little longer than other makers used two speed automatics, the other benefit of them was more power getting to the drive wheels as it took less horsepower to run them (which is why the Chevy PowerGlide has been a consistent favorite in some drag race classes). Several orientations on transmission uses back then. In reality, though, wheel spin might look "impressive", but unless the tires hook up and move the vehicle, it's just a waste of resources. At this point in time, any manufacturer will cease carrying new or reman parts for their production vehicles when it ceases to be economically feasible to do so. Plain and simple. Replacement parts needs are estimated when the original business case for the vehicle is configured. If there's a steady use of individual parts, they'll stay in production until that demand tapers off, but if things happen as they did for certain Chevrolet models, the vehicle's popularity "reheated" after all of the factory parts were sold out. Then the reproduction/restoration people come into play with GM Licensed Parts, if it's again feasible to produce them. Case in point was the '66 era Chevy Nova. Basically, by observation, once you get away from the higher volume GM carlines, parts availability "down the road" from GM or AC-Delco for OEM production replacement parts does quickly deteriorate. Another case in point is the electronic struts for the Allantes. GM put out a bulletin several years ago that they were ceasing to support the replacement struts and detailed how to replace them with regular struts and alter the wiring so that the Body Control Module would not put up a warning light and trouble codes for the suspension. Back to a comment I made earlier, as any other auto enthusiast for a specialty type vehicle--or even a mainstream model of vehicle, you network with other similar enthusiasts and swap information on things such as where to get things and who to ask for to get them. Pretty simple, but it might take a little time to find these sources. In the case of the Reatta, the Reatta Division operatives probably know anything about those vehicles you could ever hope to need to know. They are a great information source! Throughout Buick's history, they've had highly evolved "little engines" with some great engineering in them. Many of them were overshadowed by the larger engines of the times, but that did not diminish the fact that they were as good as they were--even in the early '60s. The 215 cid V-8, shared in some respects with Oldsmobile (who turbocharged it in 1962), was just recently taken out of production by Rover. The 300 cid V-8s evolved into the great small block Buick V-8s of the '60s and later time frames. In the 1965 time frame when Ford, GM, and Chrysler had their "big sixes" for the smaller cars that gave the performance of the standard V-8s in larger cars, but with the economy of a 6 cylinder. Quite a feat back then to achieve something of that nature, whereas the original Chevy 265 V-8 weighed less than the 6 cylinder it replaced. When the fuel efficiency issues arose in the 1980s, small engines were "in" AND most were V-6s or smaller V-8s. When Buick got their first turbo 3.8L V-6s in production, they were the "performance alternative" to the Chevy 305 4bbl V-8s. They did have some initial teething problems, but by the time the "black" GNs hit, it was a highly evolved and sophisticated powerplant. It also kind of fit into the GM midset that it didn't matter how many cylinders an engine had, it was the horsepower that mattered (an orientation that carries on today). I'll readily admit that if I go looking for a performance car, I would want one with a V-8--if for nothing else than "image", but I also know the Turbo GNs were highly credible performers even in stock form and, if the turbo's spooled up, will make other V-8s see red tailights. You can make fun of the way they might sound, but the fact remains that the performance is there. Might be a "boy racer Buick", but it's still one FAST Buick too! Heck, even the FBI ordered up some GNXs to chase drug runners! In short, just because they didn't come with V-speed rated tires didn't mean they were slow, just that GM didn't want to spend the extra money OR have them outrun Corvettes of that time frame. Let's all agree to disagree on the types and models of Buicks we might like, but remember that we're ALL still part of the Buick Enthusiast Family too and that a Buick is not defined by the number of spark plugs it might have! Enjoy! NTX5467

Not sure how things are in the San Antone area, but up here in DFW, we're selling lots of 275-300 horsepower Cadillacs to lots of older folks that probably don't know what's under the hood, except that it's a Northstar. I suspect that many similar owners of the allegedly "segment leading" Lexus or Mercedes cars similarly don't know what they might be looking at if they choose to raise the hood, with all due respect. Wasted technology? Many of them even spring for the factory replacement electronic controlled struts when they start bouncing too much. Corvette sales might be in a doldrum considering the improved 2005 will soon be on the way, but that might not be completely true considering the Z06 is still alive and well. By observation, people that can afford the higher end vehicles typically don't get nearly as concerned about the economy as others might, but the will get concerned about lease residuals and such. Remember my comment about the 200 horsepower "limit"? There's still some merit to that orientation. With the current transaxle in the Grand Prix, Regals, Centurys, and Impalas, word was that Lutz wanted 280 horsepower for the 2004 Grand Prix GTP (supercharged Buick 3800 V-6), but what he got was 260 horsepower due to the limitations that GMPowertrain insisted be on the "warrantiable" power of the engine. 260 horsepower's not too shabby, but not "segment leading" either as Nissan's OHC V-6 has similar power, just as the LaCrosse sport model with the new GM 3.6L DOHC V-6 also has. If it was not for the advanced electronics to back off the spark timing at the split second the transmission shifts (to decrease the shock loads on the gear sets), we would still be in the 200 horsepowe range, I suspect. Granted, the aftermarket has transaxles that will consistently take more power than the production unit, but I suspect they are also more expensive in many respects. If you read most any road test of the current hot rod Altima V-6, there have always been comments about torque steer in that car and how allegedly bad it is. I have noticed that many Altima V-6s have the optional limited slip axle in them too, but I don't know how that would affect the torque steer issue. Torque steer's been around since the first small fwd cars built in this country. I don't recall it being mentioned in the road tests of the early Toronados and such, though. Soooo, until we get rear wheel drive back in production, you'll probably not see any more horsepower than what we now have in the front wheel drive platforms, regardless of who the manufacturer is. I know, there are pocket rockets around that are front wheel drive, but they are more attuned to young people (and those that still feel young). The SRT-4 Neon is one such unit. In that type of vehicle, you expect to have some torque steer and it's no big deal, but to someone else in a different type of vehicle, it could well be as much of a surprise as unintended acceleration. I suspect the Subaru of which you speak is also all wheel drive. Names? Camaro is a version of a French word for "friend". Vega was "Chevy's little star". Terraza? Century now means "high value transportation for the budget minded"--if the resale value was not as good as it must be AND the car was not as reliable as it obviously is, it would NOT be in the rental fleets OR any other fleet for that matter. Look at things from the other side of the desk and it all makes sense to those that pay the bills. Besides, if you walk out onto the National Car Rental Emerald Isle and have a choice of a Mitsubishi Galant or a Century, what would the normal person choose? Remember the advertising when the Century was reintroduced that stated you could have Buick luxury for under $20,000.00 MSRP? Those "program cars" ALSO serve the niche of people that can't afford a brand new Buick but can afford a used one. Many would rather buy a used Buick and get an extended warranty rather than buy a new lesser vehicle with no extended warranty for the same money. Contrary to what some might perceive, Buicks are still classier than Taurus or Camry. Cavalier admittedly has not received the attention that it might deserve. As performance parts were developed for the Pontiac Sunfire, the same things were done for the Cavlier during the past few years and those items tend to reside in the GM Performance Parts catalog. Too much too late? Possibly. Also consider that Cobalt will be here in a few months too, which should address the deficiencies of the Cavalier in concept and sheet metal. By the same token, there appears to be quite a following of the GM J-body from what I've seen in forums dedicated to just that platform. Similar with the N-body Grand Ams too. As for the "scoopless" GTO, remember the orientation to get away from all of that geegaw styling of prior Pontiacs? Unless a hood scoop has at least 30 square inches of total openning area, it's more for cosmetics and not performance. There's also the issue of boundary layer air flow versus real air flow a few inches above the hood's surface. Ram Air? Not unless you're running past 100mph, from what studies have mentioned. Sure, the cooler air might be a benefit, but not necessarily enough to feel in all driving conditions. As I recall, the percent of gain per 10 degrees of temperature drop is in the single numbers. With the close relationship of the Camaro/Firebird hood scoops to the motor, the duct work to make them work correctly could well have enough flow restriction in them (as produced) to pretty much negate any real performance gains--but they sure do look neat to many people. Scoops can have a performance image and some do work, but price an Air Grabber hood scoop for a '70 Road Runner or the Cowl Induction hood for a '70 Chevelle SS454 or the cold air induction hood for a Buick GS455 and see all that it takes to make them work. Similarly, adding the SS hood to a late model Camaro and having it function (as it does on the SS models) is well past $1500.00 plus paint and installation. In other words, there are better places to spend money in getting a vehicle to performn than it having hood scoops for the sake of hood scoops. I know, the GTO loyalists hollered and later versions probably will have some sort of hood scoop, which is fine. In trying to bring that car to market as soon as it happened, development time could well have been a big issue on whether or not hood scoops would be in the first year model of GTO. If hood scoops happen, can splitter exhaust tips be far behind? As for future Buick names, I just hope they choose something that is related to identifiable Buick Heritage. Something the younger people can get excited about and something that existing Buick enthusiasts (i.e., us) can similarly get excited about too. As we mentioned earlier, it's not the "old" name specifically that generates interest, it's the vehicle the name is attached to, yet there must be a certain amount of credibility to the whole package for things to really work right. I'll concur with the 2006 time frame, from what I've seen in various websites and considered how some things have to work together to happen at all. I kind of wish that more cars would come out together to really spark things up, but the accountants might not like that spike in spending very much. As Velite is on a production platform as it now it, making it happen is much easier than making the original Bengal happen. It all goes back to an orientation that Lutz has of making concept cars pretty much production ready "as presented". Just like Chrysler did with the original Viper (when Lutz was there). All of the design and engineering has been done, now it's just up to making a good business case for the vehicle and making it happen. As always, powertrain choices might not be what's in the concept, but similar. Enjoy! NTX5467

The renewal date is on your mailing label, or rather the expiration date of your membership (mine is on the same line as my BCA Number). It might be a good idea to aim for a 60 day before expiration time frame to make sure your renewal's mailed in so that the gears of the mailing function can remain in motion with respect to your membership. Membership cards are now "forever" of sorts. In other words, one is not issued each year as in the past. Mike and Nancy can fill you in more on that aspect. Enjoy! NTX5467

CONSIDERING . . . the time frame the Reatta was conceived and produced in, "performance" as we previously knew it was a memory--period. Everything was moving downsized with small motors and 200 horsepower was considered to be the limit that a front wheel car could reasonably tolerate--period. Yes, by that point in time, the mere 3.8L V-6 had been refined and improved to the tune of about 30 horsepower from its 1985 fwd version, no small feat in itself, and it was done with engineering advances and refinements (new cylinder heads, retargeted fuel injectors, improved fuel injectors, and other redesigned parts/pieces) that did not need the beloved turbo (at that point in time, spelled "heat sink that makes cold start emissions bad") or the later supercharger to get those gains. In other words, increased efficiency and emissions reductions with increased power was what happened. One car magazine inquired as to why Buick was not following Olds (and their Quad 4 OHC motor) in their engine development. The reply was that for a Buick owner, acceleration ended on the other side of the intersection, or something to that effect. Meaning . . . off-idle response and low end torque were more important in real world situations than 6000rpm power that an OHC motor would provide. You can read several things into that orientation, but it's not that far off from real world conditions and use. When I drove a '91 Reatta Convertible one afternoon (when it was still new), I was impressed with the body structure and general performance. It might not have had any performance intentions, but that did not mean it was a floaty cruiser either. It was easy to drive on the two-lane back roads at higher than posted speeds (but not foolishly so either!). A good mix of firmer ride and good ride. Reading the Buick literature and watching the dealer training video, the Reatta was never considered to be a performance vehicle, but a classy cruiser for the upscale "country club" set. In THAT mission, it did pretty well. Remember how the Riviera of that time frame was downsized too??? Well, the Reatta was mechanically a 2-seat Riviera with some different sheet metal. Lot of mechanical parts interchanges too, but there were enough "Reatta specific" parts that it didn't look like a cut-down Riviera. I suspect the fact that the Reatta was basically a hand built car is unimportant? Yes, it was one of the first vehicles to be built at what became the Lansing Craft Center. The vehicle moved on self-guided carts from assembly station to assembly station in sequence, but NOT on a conventional conveyor system as a traditional assembly line had. It was one of the first times that a paint vendor was in house to make sure everything worked correctly too. LOTS of innovations in production assembly were put together in the Lansing Craft Center back then. Therefore, considering the side issues of the time of "conception" and "birth" of the Reatta, it was a pretty dang decent car for Buick and GM. Some items were "state of the art" back then (the touch screen control on the earlier cars) that later would be discontinued from GM, but what that means is that if you have a problem or need Reatta-specific parts, you call the REATTA DIVISION people and find out where to get the parts--which are usually outside of the realm and knowledge of the typical GM dealership's parts department, with all due respect. In one respect, not THAT much different from any other low production speciality vehicle that's not under warranty any more. That's called "Networking" with other owners of similar vehicles. Even when the cars were new, there were some of the parts that had to be obtained by calling a particular individual in the GM organization to place the parts order. Kind of unusual, but it also gave these people a chance to spot problem areas and get them fixed with the vendor and engineering. In one respect, an unusual situation, but on the other hand, tended to prove Buick's committment to making the ownership experience much more personal in concept. This was their "halo" car of the time and they wanted everything to be a right as it could be for their owners/customers. The Reatta was a pretty neat car for its time. In many respects, it probably has been underappreciated too--then and now. Many Buicks of the more recent times are also typically underappreciated also, from my observations--but that's a whole 'nuther subject. Sure was great to see all of those Reattas on display in Flint too! Just some thoughts, NTX5467

AC-Delco has a website that also has a parts lookup section in it for many of their automotive items. NGK, Champion, Autolite, etc. all have similar websites with parts lookup areas. Many ALSO have related pages on how to decode their spark plug part number designations (which the AC-Delco paper catalog is somewhat lacking in with their more modern paper catalogs, from what I've seen in trying to cross over the 41-series plugs to prior plug part numbers). Some of those decoding pages might be a little complex to decipher, but there's a good bit of information in them too. Seems like I've seen some parts vendors that might also advertise NOS/discontinued spark plugs too. Enjoy! NTX5467

The first GM engine to put the started under the intake manifold was the ZR-1 Corvette. At that time, they claimed the durability of the starters had progressed to the point that they were so troublefree they could get away with doing that. Probably some of that same orientation resulted in the Northstar having one "down in the valley" too? In reality, only simple hand tools are needed to pull the intake off and replace the starter in a Northstar. More time consuming than anything else, plus some new gaskets. The water pump insert is a metal stamping that has angled ears that fits into the main housing and twists and locks. Pretty slick from the assembly line production standpoint as it seals against a thin o-ring around the outside edge. But after the many hot and cold cycles that can happen in about 100,000 miles or so, that pump insert basically gets glued in and even the special Kent-Moore (now SPX) tool to remove it usually breaks before the thing breaks loose to get it out. Again, pretty time consuming even for those that know how to do it. But,as with the starter buried under there, you don't have to change them THAT often during ownership, if at all--not that that justifies those situations, though. On the issue of "brite trim items". I'm kind of thinking similar thoughts. At the present time, much positive dialogue is given to "moldingless windshields" where the bare glass is its own trim, as the bodies are built to such tight tolerances that they can now delete the moldings that used to cover the gap. Sounds neat, until you consider that that's just that much less money they spend on the vehicle. Where I'd like to see a little britework is in the interior. Those highly precisioned color "butt joints" in the door panels and instrument panels might look less industrial if they had a thin strip of britework covering those areas--just like in the old days, britework can enhance the look and lead to greater perceived value, if it's done tastefully. But these extra britework strips might put enough extra labor time into the assembly process that it might make GM look like it's loosing the "vehicle assembly time" race in The Harbor Report. Precision two-tone trim that lines up perfectly is nice, but when it's a cover for decreased costs in an expensive vehicle, something might need to be revisited. On the subject of interior colors, WHERE did the notion that brown woodgrain trim (with no chrome-like accent trim around it) is a good color combination with a graphite or charcoal interior? Black and brown together????!!! Not to mention the distinct lack of color choices in modern interiors to better match the exterior colors too!! Granted the graphite leather in many current Buicks looks really luxurious, but might look kind of drab in some cases too. Interiors are another place that could be snazzzzzed up with some britework trim and brighter colors too. Just some thougths, NTX5467

With all due respect, the Northstar V-8 is pretty dang troublefree. Granted, when you pull the heads off for the first time at about 150,000+ miles (if at all), all of the threads in the aluminum block will come out, BUT there is a "TimeSert" repair that's pretty inexpensive. The water pump insert is a little troublesome to get out too, but pretty slick how it's designed. Besides, there's probably very few engines of other manufacturers that don't have some little quirks about them as they age. At one time in the early 1990s, we sold a good number of interrupter magnets (that went in the timing sproket) for the 3800s and the lower pulley/balancers. Similarly, there's been a decent amount of activity on the pair or crankshaft position sensors on the Northstar. Whether it's been the earlier mass air flow sensors of the late 1980s on the 3800s or whatever, all of these things are pretty easy to replace and diagnose. Not all of them needed those things, but the few that did were easy to fix. PLUS the cycles of the parts sales on these parts on the newer GM vehicles is drastically shorter than in prior times--more like months instead of years. As for the octane requirement of the 3800 supercharged engine, the super unleaded requirement is for max power. With all of the electronics (including timing adjustment when the knock sensors activate), it'll operate with regular or mid-grade just like the regular 3800 will, just that it might loose 10 horsepower or so under total max power situations. There's a website that goes into a great amount of detail of how the engine management system works when it detects just one "clatter" and how long it takes the system to restore max timing. Quite informative, especially for front wheel drive race performance with production street vehicles! Key thing about rebates, whether for vehicles or computer products, not everyone can qualify for them (or cheap interest rates!). Makes for good marketing copy, though. Also gives the consumer a reason every quarter or so to check out to see what the current "plan" is, if they aren't already in a payment plan on a vehicle. Life might be simpler without these rebates, but it's just another "game" to keep the consumer interested, whether it's just latent interest or intense interest. I found an article in Automotive Quarterly on the Ford Modular 4.6L V-8. It mentioned that they benchmarked the Lexus OHC V-8 and that they met or exceeded it's benchmarks in power, economy, and a few other areas. The earlier cars I've rented with that motor seemed to be lackluster in performance and mediocre in highway cruise economy. Later versions of the 4.6L V-8 are finally getting better driveability and economy. If it's the equal of a fancy Toyota V-8, that's not saying much about the Toyota engine, I suspect. Especially as the original sohc versions of the 4.6L struggled to get similar power as the famous 5.0L V-8 did, with pushrods no less. I'll admit I haven't been around a full size Lexus with that engine, but those "benchmark" vehicles just don't excite me one bit. Others might feel differently, but I suspect that if their lease residuals were not quite so good, their popularity might not be quite so great. And it's popularity and "demand" that keep those lease residuals and resale at the levels they are. Lexus styling? Even the most basic Buick has them already beat! Cadillac seems to have tried to strike a balance between Lexus and Mercedes in the current DeVille and look how unremarkable that car's styling is--inside and out. Besides, if you bought a Park Avenue Ultra (which takes only about 4.5 quarts of oil for an oil change) instead of a Cadillac DeVille with the Northstar V-8 (which takes a tad over 7 quarts of oil for an oil change), it looks like every third oil change in the Park Avenue would be free. Even the Chrysler 3.5L V-6 takes over 6 quarts for an oil change, and it makes roughly the same power as the 3800 V-6. In other words, there are some sound financial reasons to drive Buicks and the other GM cars that use the Buick 3800 V-6. Look at total ownership cost (including maintenance) and not just lease residuals if you really want to see what the true cost of ownership is. One last thing, I wish the press would totally forget the word "stodgy"--period. Of course, if the current cars are that way then it sets the stage for the public to be ready to see the new and improved models in the near future. Only thing is that it tends to do a disservice to the existing vehicles which probably could use a few tweaks to make them look a little snazzzier or whose platform might not be less than three years old. Usually, those tweaks are not hard or expensive to do, but just don't get done for one reason or another (hidden agendas?), just like innovative advertising costs the same as mediocre advertising. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

I saw an article at www.autochannel.com that mentioned that the replacement for Park Avenue would not be here until about 2007 or so, which would be rear wheel drive when it arrives. The LeSabre replacement will be in 2006 and front wheel drive. No mention that I recall of the LeSabre name changing, though. We've understood that the Park Avenue name would go away when the current version is replaced. Brand equity does not necessarily mean putting a new name up for a vehicle, but making the replacement vehicle a better and more competitive vehicle in all respects. A new name will give people a reason to check out "The New Buick" instead of a new model of an existing name. Look at the rave reviews the Chrysler 300's getting with the new vehicle that name is now attached to--and THAT's a name that predates LeSabre AND Park Avenue as production vehicle names! I know, some of the high faluttin' marketing types think everything's got to be new, but Chrysler has proved that does NOT have to be the case if the vehicle attached to the existing name is a much improved and high value vehicle. Is Chrysler setting a new trend? If a vehicle's going to have perceived high value, it needs to have a glamourous name and then deliver on the high style and content--no "fluff" allowed. Leave all of the "alphabet soup" names to the Germans. Let's put some pizzazzzzz back into Buick with a snazzy car and a similarly snazzzzyyy name, which (the names) Park Avenue and LeSabre tend to be. High fashion, high content, high glamour, high performance, high comfort, high value--wasn't that Buick in the middle 1950s? It CAN happen again and it I hope it does! Just some thoughts, NTX5467

At that point in GM's history, each vehicle division was its own operating entity--MUCH moreso than in more recent history. Therefore, about the only thing that might interchange would be the compressors (but not the mounts and watch out for different clutch pulley diameters) and possibly the suction throttling valve assembly. Everything else would typically be year and vehicle model specific. In some cases, there would be several years for the same part in a particular vehicle application, but very little cross-division uses otherwise. Many items that would seem to interchange don't. Enjoy! NTX5467

Many of the European brands never did get that excited about fwd for all of their vehicles. Seems that the smaller ones were where the packaging issues of fwd were more prevalent than in the larger cars. About the only renegade of sorts was Saab. They were fwd back when it was oddball AND they were winning rally trophies too, out performing many rear wheel drive cars in the process (as their drivers had discovered the correct way to use the foot brake to position the fwd cars in the corners and then blast out). Seems that Olds or Buick did some tests in the early 1980s that proved that when the weight bias was more in the range of 50-50, the advantages of fwd were greatly diminished. One key thing about fwd--there is a definite limit to the amount of forces the tire footprint can control. In a fwd car, the front tires transfer driving forces from the powertrain to the ground PLUS relay lateral demands from the steering and braking activities too. That's a lot of work for two tires to do, especially on slick or icy surfaces where basic traction is compromised to start with. After most of the American manufacturers had converted to fwd, it was reported that one media person inquired as to when Mercedes Benz might field a fwd vehicle in their lineup. As I recall, the reply was something to the effect that all of the great road cars of the world were rear wheel drive. If anyone hasn't noticed, there is something of a horsepower race on in several market segments. Best way to use that additional power is via rear wheel drive. Current transaxles would not take the extra power needed in many cases, so if you're going to redesign a transaxle, it might as well be a transmission and put more room for power increases in it up front. With the fancy stability controls now available, it doesn't matter which set of wheels are pushing the vehicle so rear wheel drive can return to handle the extra horsepower of the future. Although it's not entirely related to fwd, the use of suspension struts on the front ends also dictates a certain frontal size and height of the fender line. Therefore, more aerodynamic shapes can be had with "normal" engine orientation and the return of the control arm front suspensions. As cars get shorter and wheelbases get longer at the same time, this can be a very significant issue. Just some thoughts, NTX5467