NTX5467

That part number series might tend to be from the early '80s or so. Used to be that each GM division had their own part number sequences staked out, but that went away toward the later '70s just prior to the 8 digit part numbers (with the exception of the "imported" GM vehicles). Just some thoughts, NTX5467

That "low slung station wagon" is currently called "Cadillac SRX" and maybe Buick could have a version of that one too! In fact, maybe even a version of the Sigma coupe when it gets online up here too???? The SRX is one awesome vehicle. I drove several last week at a dealer training event. The Lexus RX300, as one guy put it (after the handling course portion) belongs only on straight roads. The Volvo wagon, even with its "anti-tip" technology, has its shortcomings when compared to the SRX--even on safety issues. The only real competition, performance wise, is the BMW X5 V-8, but it's not designed to go to Home Depot. Sometimes, it has seemed that market research has been talking to not enough of the "right people" in the past. It's interesting what Mr. Lutz says about focus groups and market research in his book "GUTS", that was written prior to his current GM residency. One thing I've noticed, Matt, is that many buyers of the more allegedly desireable higher end luxury makes, buy those vehicle NOT for their performance or gadgets, but for the impression it makes with others at work or the way it looks in their driveway. Several of our managers at work viewed a Cadillac focus group with Lexus owners about a year ago. The idea was to get some information about what they liked about their ownership experience and such. One proud Lexus owner stated that HIS car was built in Germany. OUCH! or WHOOPS! depending on how you look at that. Another friend used to shuttle vehicles for a Dallas Lexus dealership. Some of the customers did not like having a Toyota Camry to drive as a service loan car, even when they had the similar Lexus vehicle in their garage. So, to me, it's all about "perception" and such instead of what's actually there. BMW drivers like the fact they can get free maintenance for their car as part of the deal. But that's all figured into the base price of the vehicle. Plus free loaner vehicles during service. Every amenity that these higher end import owners get is figured into the cost of doing business somewhere, but that's just the way the game is played. Of course, those who can afford those cars really don't mind or consider that fact. I'll concur that Audi and the other vehicles Matt mentioned are first rate performance vehicles. They'll have decent reliability and such too. Nice fit and finish also. We've talked about Pizzazz (and the lack thereof), but many mainstream owners are more interested in reliability, purchase price, and maintenance issues. Whether it's a young family with a used program car or someone that trades every year, these things are important from a utility standpoint. Just how much pizzazz does a Toyota Camry have? Yet it's a desired vehicle. Costs more than a base Impala, less room in the trunk and inside, less power in the 4 cylinder, etc. Build quality? Check the more recent JD Powers surveys. I'll admit that I appreciate fine engineering as much as anyone, but I also know that it's very hard to beat the Buick 3800 V-6 and even the Chevy 60 degree V-6 (at this point in time) for fuel economy, "no problems", AND production cost. It's these reasons that while I eagerly await the next gen of V-6 engines from GM (which ought to be "kick ass" if they're as good as the EcoTec 4 cylinder!), but I also know that each car has it's own necessity to be a certain price when it gets to the end of the assembly line. So, you either spend it under the hood or put it elsewhere. With the LH cars, Chrysler managed to put neat engines under the hood (which, by the way, Matt, the 2nd gen 3.5L V-6s meet your power specs and also get very good highway fuel economy--from my own experiences) or you put it in the interior and places you can touch it. Chassis dynamics cost the same whether they are great, good, or mediocre. Struts cost the same either way too, but you can save some money on tires (probably one reason many Centurys come with Generals instead of Michelins?) if all that's important is that they ride smooth and hold air. A friend used to sell Porsches in the '80s. He'd tell us about how trick they were and highly advanced they were. I'd counter that the 911 is nothing but a re-engineered, well finessed--50+ times over!--VW Beetle, from whence the old 356s sprang. He'd get flustered and couldn't really discount my observation. It was amusing. The current 911 doesn't look much like the old 356, but it's highly respected and desired. Similarly, the Buick 3.8L V-6 has undergone several engineering upgrades since it's first appearance. It, too, is highly respected for the great engine that it is. Hard to beat low production costs (compared to the SOHC or DOHC engines and all of their extra parts), very low warranty costs, and solid performance. But, as we all know, something better is just around the corner. I know, Toyota and Nissan put high tech engines in their vehicles. Ever notice how the press nags about the inexpensive looking plastic in the new Nissan interiors? Just a few sentences after the complain about the torque steer? I noticed that most of the Nissan V-6 cars we sell have a limited slip differential in the front (which might negate the torque steer issue somewhat?). Or praise the V-6 Altima for its handling prowess and then talk about the rough ride? The Nissan Altima is a very impressive package, price and feature wise, even with the 2.5L 4 cylinder. Much more exciting than a Camry, for sure, but less sales than the Camry too. Look under the hood of a 4 cylinder Camry and everything you could ever hope to not work on is very easy to get to. Unfortunately the EcoTec in a Grand Am is not that way. I know when I was in junior high and high school, talking cars was a great thing to do with friends and older people who worked on cars or were car enthusiasts. Finding a long time machine shop owner or (now/then retired) auto mechanic and talking with them was always a treat back then, just as now. All it takes is someone that doesn't mind getting their fingernails greasy (or used to) to take a younger auto enthusiast under their wings to help teach them about why some things are better than others and why some other things are marginal at best, to intensify the love of automobiles in the younger generations. Just preaching superiority will not get it, but explaining the superiority and why it is can be good. Then, you find several with different orientations and it all really falls into place! I admire the really shined-up show vehicles, but I also like to see the unmolested vehicles in their natural state too. Personally, I like to see vehicles where the owners have done incognito upgrades and took the time to make it look "like it came that way", in a covert manner. A higher degree of execution, typically, than just some trick of the week in a magazine somewhere. I believe we can generally agree that better days are ahead for Buick and GM, plus the automotive hobby in general. It will be hard to get past the miscues of the immediately past decades, but it can be done. GM did miss some market segments in prior times (a good 4 cylinder/5-speed Grand Am is one) and let the imports that did have those vehicles gain market share in the process. Some market segments were underserved too. We can all point fingers, but allocating blame doesn't necessarily move things forward into the future. This is where WE come in. If there's a product in Buick that you'd like to see, let the GM operatives know about it. The other side of that is that if you commit to saying you'll buy something if they'll build it, it would be better if you weren't already deep in a monthly payment plan on a current vehicle that would prevent you getting that new Buick you've been wanting. After all, you'll have a couple of years before it happens anyway so you can be ready for when it might happen. In the current time frame, Buick and GM does have some fine products in production now with more in the near future. We know they're good, but convincing the owner of another make that they are can be tough sometimes--especially when they "think" they need to be driving something else for whatever reason. The Buick and GM showings in the various surveys out there have been good and will continue to improve as time goes on. Sure, an Audi A6 or supercharged A4 would be neat cars to run around in (and have decent utility too) just as a 3 or 5-series BMW would be. Unfortunately, those cars aren't for everybody. I suspect that not all of their owners fully respect them for their great engineering or handling prowess--it's that "name thing", just as telling someone you owned a Buick typically meant more then than now. A few years ago, I rented a 300M and drove to Houston for a meeting. The Holiday Inn I was staying in had a youth group in town for a trip. One of them yelled and told me he liked my car. He added that when he got out of college, he was going to get one too. I smiled and thanked him. Point is, if Chrysler can get to that point pretty easily with neat products, so can Buick and GM. Like I said earlier, when Mr. Lutz says something neat's in the future, it most probably is. Look what happened when he was at Chrysler. Read his book and you'll probably see that he's done and will do many of the same things at GM too. Enjoy! NTX5467

I checked the warranty times for a "engine replace" for the new Trailblazer and Bravada today. Basic time for a 2 wheel drive model is just a hair over 10 labor hours with the 4200 I-6. Even with the add-ons for all wheel drive, rear a/c, and such, the max time was under 16 labor hours. I checked with our tech who did the engine R&Rs on them. He related that you removed the engine just as in a G-Van vehicle (full size van) by removing the grille, radiator, and related body parts to get the engine out the front of the vehicle. I'm not sure why the quoted group decided to lift the body from the chassis, but I suspect they had a reason that made sense to them at the time. Just an update of what I found out, NTX5467

Part of what made General Motors great in the prior decades was that it DID compete with itself. This was before the off-shore competitors became as allegedly strong as they are now. Chevy offered vehicles from economy to really nice family cars. Small cars, midsize cars, full size cars, convertibles, coupes, sedans, wagons, and ventured into the luxury field with the Caprice in mid-year 1965. Pontiac and Olds were similar, just as Buick tended to be. Yes, each division could be all things to the customer in their respective price ranges. Yes, there was also some price overlap in the mix too. A high line Impala would be similar to a base model Catalina or Olds Delta 88 or even a LeSabre. Remember that it was the 3 year time payment contract by GMAC that let Buick outsell Plymouth in the middle '50s? Back then, each dealership was a stand alone store, typically with only ONE franchise. Now, such single franchise stores are rare, except for Chevy and Cadillac--and those are diminishing with the GM combination strategy. Yes, in those early days the GM Moveup Strategy worked. When Chevy started offering the fancy Caprice, it recognized the fact that once people were happy with a Chevy and didn't want to buy anything else, they would buy a fancy Chevy. Cadillac protested loudly in the early '70s due to some of the "baby Cadillac" look of the Caprices back then. Yet, this move by Chevy did not water down the basic strategy of how GM covered their various bases in the price ranges. As for demographics, no one started worrying about that until about 10 years ago. Suddenly, the newer marketing types looked up and there were no real young people in the mix anymore. Reason? Probably not paying attention to the off-shore competitors or deluded into thinking that "bells and whistles" sold vehicles. In the '80s, GM seemed bent on proving that their products were competitive by having and matching the features of other vehicles. Yet the GM 2.5L 4 cylinder did not typically match the refinement of the competition's same size engine. Not to sound flaky, but size is important so long as the refinement is there. GM's products from the middle '80s were solid, good products, but didn't really break any new ground as most of the development work money was going elsewhere. For other future products as they started trying to fix what they'd let happen. Yes, most of these things seemed to happen when the financial people were in control of the corporation. When the basic "division" organization was being dismantled from what it had been. Sure, with emissions and safety issues looming large, why is it necessary to have each division with engine plants, foundries, design staffs, etc? Only thing IS that when that prior organization is combined, each division had their own culture and way of doing things that was now "dead". Former competitors now were on the same team, so to speak. Sure, each division was a part of the larger GM entity, but each division was also responsible as their own profit center (which they should be). When GM was great, in prior decades, each division had their own power figures. The General Manager, the Chief Engineer, etc. THOSE people made each division what it was. These upper level managers were moved around in the corporation from division to division to continue their successes and build their expertise for the eventual rise to the 14th floor in the GM Building. This is why each division had differently designed engines that were part of the fabric of each division's vehicles. Similar with transmissions and rear axles too. Each one tailored to the mission statement of each respective division. It worked then and it worked very well. Each division was competing in various ways with each other. Profits, assembly expenses, whatever. It appeared that what happened in those areas at Ford or Chrysler were not THAT important, in some cases. Overlapping products? Sure. When you bought a Chevy, it was for its value and such. It was the entry level GM line and also the highest volume line. Then it went to Pontiac, Olds, Buick, and Cadillac. Even then, there were the orientations that a Chevy Caprice was as nice as a ________ and for less money. Everyone has their own orientations in that area while others want that name on the grille. To me, the error with Olds was that it was repositioned against the wrong "Import" lines. Mitsubishi might have been better than Lexus or Infinity, for example, or even Jaguar. Look at the late, great Intrigue and how it compares to the S-Type Jag in size and such. Not to mention the Lincoln LS. See any similarities to the cosmetics of a Lexus sedan and a Buick Regal? In the right color combinations (including the black paint on the rocker panels of the Regal), the Regal LS looks as good as the Lexus. When the combination strategies with respect to GM's "divisions" AND the orientation of the '80s that all retailers needed as many lines to sell as they could handle, then the similar products were perceived to be a problem. Too many choices for the consumer? The choices were always there, just several blocks apart. One thing that is being re-understood is that a Cadillac customer does not always want to partonize the same facility as a Chevrolet customer. These are two entirely different breeds of customer. Buick customers and traditional Olds customers for the larger cars want bench seats and column shifts (the fact that Olds could not deliver that in the Aurora was one reason the long time Olds Delta 88 customers left Olds in later history), yet those things in the midsize cars are not that big of a deal, usually. Yes, it's an age thing, possibly. Interestingly, as GM tries to shun the "old" customer, Lincoln has said they like them as they just keep on buying Town Cars year after year. People in that age demographic don't always want the latest design vehicles, but something they are used to and can depend on to be there. But, Lincoln also has the LS model and other properties in the hotter segments where the age demograhics and buyer concerns are different too. The one thing that hasn't been mentioned is that each plant has to have a certain amount of volume in it to remain financially viable. Hence, what happens with Impala will affect Grand Prix and Regal too. Not to mention LeSabre, Bonneville, DeVille. Similar with Grand AM and Alero. And, with the more global orientation, Opel in Germany and Holden in Australia. Right now, GM's getting the next gen smaller cars ready to roll out of the plants. I suspect that if the existing Caprice and Cadillac volume has been greater for the Arlington plant, we would have not seen the last generation of Roadmaster happen. Therefore, what happens with Buick product will be tied to what the other divisions do moreso than in the past. I suspect that this interrelationship was a factor with the demise of Olds, unfortunately. In the future, it appears that we will be moving into selective "all things" within a price demographic for the vehicle lines. Just because Buick is a higher level GM vehicle doesn't mean their owners might not want something smaller than a midsize car. Yet, such downmarker ventures are tricky, as Mercedes is finding out. As for the economy side of things, the Buick 3800 V-6 engine (even if it IS old and has a camshaft in the block!) is an outstanding fuel economy and power engine. It's EPA highway figures are higher than many imports that are considered to be economy cars. Economy with good performance is its hallmark. Meaning you don't have to have a cramped beater to get good fuel economy. I challenge anyone that considers that engine to be old and outdated just because it does not have overhead camshafts to get into a Pontiac GTP Comp G and see how that old tech "torque" engine lay's a car length of expensive BFG rubber with the traction control turned on and then say "It doesn't work"! And still has an EPA highway of about 27mpg too. Sure, GM's got a new line of V-6 engines ready to start being in production. After all, tooling wears out with time and age and it suddenly gets cheaper to do something neat with the same money you'd spend to refresh the existing tooling. It opens opportunities to upgrade the technologies in production and combustion dynamics too. While good things are good, the future will always need to have some progression in technology. Key thing is to not jump on the bandwagon of new for new's sake as those ventures can erode profits too much too soon AND make sure that what's replacing the prior stuff really is an improvement. In short, it's not so much GM's product as it is GM's marketing. Sure, some more refinement is necessary in the modern and future marketplace, but when you've been around the imports and the domestics, the domestics aren't nearly so bad as they've been made out to be. Most of those stories started in the '70s and this is now 30 years later--things have changed because they had to change. I'll concur with Pete's "no excitement" orientation. When chrome went away as styling accents, excitement tended to diminish. Then came safety and emissions "diversions" and the cosmetic details became somewhat bland by comparison. 2-door hardtops were probably a result of federal side impact regulations, but there are ways around those things too--if the money's there to develop them AND the customer will buy them. But, "no excitement" (as we've known it in the past) isn't necessarily what the younger breed of customer that did not grow up with those things considers to be exciting. Many have found the Regal LS and GS to make better alternatives to the Mitsus and such for their family cars AND they've discovered the bleed-over from the Grand Prix for performance modifications too. These are confirmed Buick customers and we just need to harness them for future products. Sorry for the length, but it's a somewhat complicated mix of situations. Enjoy! NTX5467

Seems like we've seen some of the new 4200 I-6s that had sleeves that moved in their bores and needed repairs, but I know for a fact that the body was not moved from the chassis to get the engine out. That was with some of the early model year Trailblazers. Even a very few engines with bad quality cylinder head castings too. Since then, NO engine problems or any kind. The reason I know that the body and frame was not fully separated is that our heavy line technician has no facilities to make that happen in his stall. I know the vehicle did not go to the body shop too. Besides, if he'd had to do that, I would have heard comments about it. Funny how no one talks about the NorthStar engine situation. To remove those engines, it is first necessary to drop the front subframe assembly as you can't even remove the cylinder heads with the engine in the car. YET, this is not that big of a deal and is done with no fanfare--it's just the way it is and there are special tools/dollies for such activities. With the great realiability of those motors, it just doesn't happen that often. As for the Rainier, it is the only version of that particular utility family that will have the 5.3L V-8 in a short wheelbase version. With a little tuning and aftermarket parts, it could well be a BMW X5 competitor! As for those posts of alleged engine problems, that's what you get the factory warranty for AND you buy the extended warranty for too. Those things are protection whether you need them or not, just like life or accident/health or car insurance. As for the reason for the body lift to work on the motor, I haven't seen that deal but I would certainly question why it was done that way in the first place. Sure, GM had some debacles in the past as to serviceability out in the field--and it wasn't limited to any one GM division either. It was widely commented that GM cars were designed to be assembled on the assembly line and not worked on in the field--two very different orientations. That was in the '70s. I've discovered over the years that all vehicles tend to have certain idiosyncracies as to how to work on them versus how we "want" to work on them. In the end, it's best to know how to do a particular labor operation with the proper tools and environment before starting the job. What about the large number of late model Ford products that you have to remove the entire instrument panel to change an evaporator core? Something that used to be done from under the instrument panel. Or the fact that you have to drop the fuel tank on late model T-birds (not the current ones) and Cougars to change universal joints? None of these things are everyday situations, but it's just the way things are. Just as Chrysler Cirrus/Dodge Stratus and some other Chrysler Corp vehicles don't have a fuel filter that is external of the fuel tank and easily replaceable. There are some other makes that have this same situation. But, from what the Chrysler parts people tell me, those vehicles have enough capacity in the filter area that they don't need replacement like the smaller filters do. As for the Rainier, if I was in the market for such a vehicle, I'd certainly buy one. It's always been fun to drive "sleepers" that could whoop up on alleged performance vehicles before they knew what had happened, hehe. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

The distilled water orientation has been mentioned as being optimum for decades, but few people every really use distilled water. Of course, it'd depend on how much "hardness" is in your tap water. I'd try to do the distilled water deal if at all possible--most grocery stores carry it now anyway. A long slow charge is much preferred over a large, quick charge. The slower charge will get "deeper" into the plates than the quicker charge that will put a "surface charge" in them. Kind of like it builds "memory" into the plates. Of course, too much charging can cause the electrolyte to "gas" too much and decrease the electrolyte's level in the battery's cells. Make sure the voltage regulator on the vehicle does not charge too much, but still charges enough to keep the battery up to where it needs to be for good operation and long life. This can be a somewhat delicate balancing act, sometimes, but if everything's set to factory specs, it should work ok. Be sure to use a charger that will decrease the charge rate as the battery's charge level increases. In the end, the needle should be bouncing off of the "zero charge" mark as it tries to put more juice into the battery and it does not need it and finally rests on the "zero charge" mark. Keeping the battery fully charged will also extend its life AND keep that Buick ready for any impromptu cruises that you might want to make happen. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Does that carb use a "heat track" under the primary side to help with cold start driveability? Just a thought. On the Chevy versions, there's a stainless steel plate that goes directly under the carb and on top of the insulator gasket on the manifold. I know that those particular insulator/stainless steel gasket combinations are somewhat hard to find these days. What I'm wondering is that if there is a heat track, combined with a heat riser valve that's stuck closed and putting exhaust heat up there when it's not needed, that it could result in an environment that could well make the fuel evaporate from the float bowl. Factor in modern fuels with great evaporative qualities and it might be that way. From my experiences with orig equipment AFBs and AVSs on non-Buicks, float bowl evaporation was not a problem, even after sitting for a week. Hence the possibility that the floats might need to be tweaked a little higher. That much fuel going away in a few days is actually quite a bit of fuel. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

In reality, the demise of Olds probably started in the middle '80s, back when they wanted to bank on the "Cutlass" name and put it on most every model except for the larger cars. That was when sales plateaued due to what probably was some use of Olds profits to fund other GM projects, like rebuilding Cadillac back then. It was obvious they weren't spending quite as much money as they previously had to keep the vehicles looking fresh. I don't feel that funds to build Saturn were a significan issue in this area either as it seemed that Olds was not "supposed" to have any great models back then. When the Quad4 came out, there was a companion concept Quad8 version with an instant 300 horsepower for the Olds 98--except that no automatic transaxle existed that could hold that much power. No money was spent on that V-8, but the future Cadillac "world class" NorthStar was mentioned within about a year later. At that time, Olds was perceived to be a strong brand, as it was, but when you don't spend any money on the vehicles and then let other things take their toll on the Oldsmobile product line, what started happening was the basis for what happened in recent history. Everyone talks about how the Buick line is limited in scope with fewer models than other divisions have and the vehicles have been around for a good while with few changes other than colors and trim codes. BUT, what the press and others DO NOT mention is how profitable the Buick division has been, even in a shrinking market. Just as Mercury is making money for Ford, Buick is making money for GM. The extent of this is not known to outsiders, but all indications are that it is happening. Just as GM will keep supplying parts for older cars as long as there is a viable demand, as long as Buick is profitable for GM, it'll be around for a long while. Buick sales, even with fewer models, have been strong in spite of the economy. They might not have been as great as in more recent and better economic times, but the total volume is nothing to sneeze at. Yes, GM corporate has been on a "combination" strategy orientation since the later '70s. When these combination strategies were initiated, it was for cost savings via combining the various duplicity of function of the independent divisions in to a more competitive corporate entity. Whether these complete combinations strategies, as they related to the individual divisions, were beneficial or seemed to kill the internal competitiveness of GM (as has been mentioned) can lead to endless discussions and speculation. In reality, there IS a place for a vehicle in the orientation of Buick in the GM Vehicle Family now and in the future just as there has been in the past. Similar with Mercury too! There was a place for Oldsmobile too, but it seemed to be squeezed out as Pontiac moved upward and Buick moved downward just a hair, just as Dodge and Chrysler did with DeSoto in the early '60s. In many respects, there was no real reason for Olds to go away. I have my own orientations on that subject and will not get into that here. Mr. Lutz has been quoted as saying to the effect that Olds could have been saved if he'd been there sooner. Unfortunately, the corporate powers that be already had Olds in their sites for extinction back in the early '90s (as I understand it). It's strange that many niche brands make do with substantially less volume that what Olds was selling. I'll stop there. We know that a new mid-size Buick will be out in 2005. New engines are on the way too! If you were at the post-meal banquet event in Flint, were you paying attention to what Bob Lutz said in the "Happy Birthday, Buick" segments? When Bob Lutz says "The best is yet to come", from what I have read about Mr. Lutz, you'd better hang onto your seat to see what happens. I've also read about a new luxury coupe for Buick too. Probably too early for any real information on that, other than it's being seriously considered. After all, with the Sigma Platform Cadillac CTS and SRX, plus a USA-built GTO in a couple of years, having a Buick version could be a possibility--key word "could". I keep reading that a vehicle called "Bengal" is under consideration, but a good business case must be developed for whatever Buick does. Of course, many of us would like to see The Blackhawk in limited production too. None of us can predict another 35 or so years into the future. If we keep buying Buicks and Buick re-establishes and maintains itself as the Style Leader at GM and in the USA, then it should have very good longevity as it once again becomes an "aspirational vehicle" that people WANT to own--people of ALL ages. Some people keep talking about "too many models" of new vehicles for sale in the USA today. Back when it was just GM, Ford, and Chrysler (the original), there were millions of build possibilities of model, engine, transmission, colors, interior trim, etc. This was the hallmark of the American automobile industry--unlike the Asian brands that had very limited build variations. It seems that whenever the USA brands cut back on variations of models, the imports move into the void and make those market segment work for them. End result, as everyone talks about decreasing the number of models, here come new car companies into the mix that just proliferate the numbers further. Personally, I feel it's unfortunate what happened to Olds, but with the continued strength of Buick and the corporate committments being made to future Buicks, I would certainly hope that Buick will continue to be a financial pillar supporting the future business entity known as General Motors--just as it did in the beginning. Happy Birthday, Buick! And many more! Enjoy! NTX5467

If the fuel level in the carb is correct, I suspect it should take more than a few days for it to dry up. If there's a hole in the pump diaphram, it could well put fuel in the oil pan too. I suspect the possibility of siphoning fuel from the carb via the fuel pump could be possible, but highly unlikely as there will always be airspace between where the fuel enters the float bowl and the fuel in the bowl itself. The float bowl would have to be totally full for that to happen, at which time it would probably be flooding the motor. Could it be the fuel in your area is evaporating quicker due to the summer heat? I'm speaking in generalities here, not knowing what particular carb is on your motor. Hope this helps, NTX5467

I'll concur with the overlapping use on that B-chassis platform for those year models. I suspect they will be stocked in Lansing of another GM parts warehouse in the northland, hence about a week on a regular order from a local dealer or from GMPARTSMAN. Enjoy! NTX5467

At one point in time, Delco merchandised a 12 disc and a 6 disc CD changer through GM Accessories. As they were "add-on" units that remotely mounted in the luggage compartment, they used a particular FM frequency to channel the signal through, as mentioned, and had a remote control for such. These units were manufactured for Delco by an outside vendor, which I don't recall at the time. These were the "universal" style of changers. Part of their promotion was volume buying situations (like 50+ units at a time with an appropriate purchase price break). The OEM Production changer is a much more complicated deal to do, as mentioned. The radio head unit must converse back and forth with the CD changer for it to work. If your existing radio is of the correct option code, then all you might need is the cable and the changer. Sometimes, you should be able to see a "CD" logo on the control screen if it's compatible (as I recall). If not, then the universal style changer is all that can be used. We did some of these upgrades to add the factory single disc CD changer to Chevy pickups back then also, which were pretty much just a bolt-in deal in the instrument panel. We made sure we ordered the trucks with the correct radio to do that too. You might check with the local AC-Delco radio service facility to see if they might be better able to advise of what you have and it's compatibility with the OEM situation versus the universal changer situation. If a dealer still has an old GM Accessories catalog or a Delco Sound Facts catalog for that year, it would detail specifically what your options would be for what's in the vehicle now. It also might be possible to install a later model Delco radio with an internal single disc CD or CD/cassette combination in addition to the normal AM/FM Stereo equipment. The Delco service center might be able to advise of those possible compatibilities with your vehicle too. The other side issue is whether or not they have any exchange stock left over that they could sell you for the OEM items. End result, the universal style of CD changer, properly installed by competent technicians, would probably be the best option you have. Hope this helps (it's been a while since I've thought about those things!), NTX5467

As I recall, MaxTrac was a traction control device that was suited for the northern climates. It was simple in concept and operation--it killed the spark to about 1/2 of the cylinders in an analog way, unlike the modern traction controls that kill the spark to various cylinders by computer control. It had the switch on the instrument panel that turned it on or off. As there was no brake intervention in the system, as with most modern computerized traction control systems, I suspect a Buick V-8 of the magnitude as your Centurion would stil have enough torque to spin the wheels even with MaxTrac turned on. It would not prevent wheel spin, just make it harder for it to happen. At that time, Buick was the only GM division that I know of that used this option. I'm not sure how they achieved the cylinders'ignition deactivation, but there probably is a control box somewhere with some relays, a fuse, and a circuit board in it. I'm sure that a GM service manual would detail the wiring schematics for it. Might be in the Fisher Body Manual instead of the Buick Chassis Service Manual, though? Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Bill, I drove one of those wagons (but a few years earlier model) and it was not very enthusiastic to change speeds. When those cars and engines were configured, the main orientations were fuel economy and not blazing power. Anytime you see a spark ignition gas motor that needs an auxiliary vacuum pump just to change the a/c vents, then there's a message there. Most everyone I knew that had one of those Olds 307s in that general time frame consistently got mid to high 20s mpg on the highway. Which is better than the Chevy motors would get by a decent margin. Of course, it will have all of the Olds traits of long life and such, as others have mentioned. As also has been mentioned, the possibilities to swap in an Olds 350 or 403 are there. For some reason, the Olds 307s in the full size cars did have issues with clogged cat converters back then. That combination was what we saw the most activity in with respect to changing the beads out in them. When I first read the post at noon, I considered several things that might help some. One would be a V-6 torque converter for a little more stall speed at lower road speeds and still lock up for cruise. The other was a deeper rear axle, but the one under there now should be a 3.23 so it'd take a 3.73 to make any difference from what's in there now. The other thing is the weight of the vehicle versus engine size. With two people aboard, the curb weight should be on the high side of 4500+ lbs, I suspect. Couple that with an anemic (as produced) engine of 307CID and a tight torque converter and that equation is more based toward "cruise/profile" than "tire smoking performance", unfortunately. Being so square of a vehicle is not a good thing for highway performance either. I'm sure that there are some old fashioned hot rod tweaks that can be done to possibly perk things up to a more throttle responsive mode, but I wouldn't expect to be able to lay rubber very much. On the PLUS side, those were extremely nice vehicle! Some of the nicest Buicks and GM cars of that body series--period! As for the handling, add some polyurethane link bolt grommets on the front and maybe an aftermarket sway bar in the back. That way, you won't have to slow down so much for corners and therefore help keep the speed up. Email me for the link bolt kit part number. Enjoy! NTX5467

Rumors such as that are always bad to hear about! The problem is that if there is any truth of what might have happened, you'll never hear both sides of it to determine what went on OR if anything went on at all. Car club rosters will rise and fall at times. People have varying reasons why they joined in the first place too. The key thing is to have a great group of core members that will be around to keep things going in a positive direction well into the future. Sounds like things are still running fine up there. Enjoy! NTX5467

If you haven't done any sand blasting, with full-scale equipment, I can say from first hand experience that it IS a "dirty and dusty job". I think I'd use some chemical strippers that will not abrade the basic metal underneath. Sand blasting with that equipment is much different than using a blast cabinet, for suere. When we first did our "deal" a good many years ago, sandblasting was the only way to do things as the chemical strippers were not that available just yet and the plastic media and such just had not been developed yet. So we went to the equipment rental place and rented the whole deal (pressure pot, that allegedly had no moisture in it, the air compressor to run it, and the space suit to wear while doing it). Boy, did we look like we knew what we were doing! It is ABSOLUTELY necessary that no moisture be anywhere inside the pressure pot or you will not get a smooth flow of sand out of the nozzle! Just daytime temperature swings can put enough moisture in the pot to cause problems. Then there's the multiple bags of sand of varying grit ratings that you'll need. Coarse for the first clean up and progressing to Fine for the final dressing of the metal. Not to mention the technique of holding the nozzle at the correct angle to and distance from the panel being cleaned. As for warping, remember that you'll have sand exiting the spray nozzle at a good rate of speed. When that sand hits the surface, it will put some localized heat into the surface as the sand hits the surface and bounces off, taking some of the paint with it. This heating and cooling can cause some warpage of the base metal if you try to go at it too quickly and do too much too quick. PLUS, if you concentrate too long on one particular spot, the sand will actually make a low spot there--another reason to always keep the nozzle moving. Similary, using a DA sander or one of the stripping wheels can probably do more harm than sandblasting. Both will put heat into the metal as they take the paint off and that's where the warping comes in. Both create dust and debris that will have to be cleaned up too. I personally feel that a quality chemical stripper (like Eastwood Company sells, for example) is the best way to strip paint from sheet metal. If there's any heat built during it's dissolving the paint, it'll be on the whole panel instead of just a very localized portion, I suspect. It's much more environmentally acceptable too, without all of the particulate hanging in the air. Easier to use too--just wipe it on and then squeegee it off in a few minutes. In many cases, if you time it correctly, you can stop at the factory original primer or you can continue to the bare metal. Key thing is that it will not abrade or degrade the basic metal panel surface. One of my friends was going to strip his car using a DA sander and lots of adhesive discs (as they come on a roll). When done, he said "Never AGAIN". Be sure to investigate ALL alternatives before doing something of this sort. I've "been there" with sand blasting and others might have other orientations. If you're confirmed on sand blasting the car/panels, then let a professional do it instead of doing it yourself. Of course, if you have another vehilce to practice on, then you might get good at it before you do your Buick. Most of the sheet metal will probalby all be of the same thickness or gauge. What will make some more brittle than others is "work hardening" as the metal ages plus the way it's shaped/contoured. I wish you luck in your project. Enjoy! NTX5467

The mechanicals on the car would be the same as for a normal Buick vehicle of that particular body series that year. All of the things that would make it a hearse would be done after the basic vehicle was built. There is a Professional Car Society national car club for "professional vehicles" as you have. Perhaps they might have some additional information on the vehicle and the conversion company that made it into what it is today. Not sure about the transmission issues. Could be a cooler line leak, a deteriorated pan gasket or filler tube grommet, or a front pump lip seal. Have to get it on a rack to see what's going on first. Enjoy! NTX5467

There are several different electrical items that make the heated seats work, other than just the switch and the heating element. That makes diagnosis a necessary situation instead of just throwing parts at it until it's fixed. In times past, the heated seat covers were just serviced as units only. Send GMPARTSMAN your VIN and he can track those parts to see what the availability for them is. IF, by chance, they are discontinued, there is a service bulletin for the heated seats in later model Cadillac Cateras which gives part numbers and procedures to change just the heating elements in the existing covers. There might also be a similar bulletin for newer DeVilles, too, seems like. The Catera elements might not be quite the same size as the ones in the Park Avenue, but at least some heat is better than no heat. Of course, the preferable way would be to replace the cover itself as it's quicker and easier to do than adding in the labor operations to carefully extract and replace the elements - and NOT damage the cover seating surface in the process. Hopefully, the problem will be in the electrical control components instead of in the seat heating element(s). Just some thoughts . . . NTX5467

Check the throttle position sensor and the Idle Air Control Valve. The tps tells the computer when the accelerator pedal moves, open or closed, and at what rate so it uses it to somewhat measure the demands the driver is putting on the engine so the computer can adjust the spark timing, fuel delivery, and other things as a result. The IAC controls the amount of air that bypasses the closed throttle plate when the engine is at idle. If the throttle plate is gunked up, then it can be cleaned with a spray cleaner. Worst case scenario is that the throttle body would have to be removed and cleaned internally, the internal passages too, then reinstalled. If there are any vacuum leaks, it can throw the IAC action off too. The GM fuel injection system is similar to what's on other vehicles too, in principle and operation, just a little different hardware and how it's controlled. A genuine GM service manual would be a plus to have, plus a quality scan tool to see what's happening and when (usually available from the major tool manufacturers--SnapOn, for example--or even AC-Delco. Also make sure that fuel pressure is to absolute specs too. There's a fitting on the injector rail to check it. Check during cranking, running, and various rpm levels to make sure that it's where it needs to be. Hope this helps, NTX5467

Thanks for that confirmation! When Harold transported the Blackhawk to our regional show last October, he mentioned that he was on the way to the movie shoot in Florida at that time. Sounded quite neat that it was going to be used in a movie! Now, they just need to build that car and make A LOT of people happy!!! Enjoy! NTX5467

If they are "standard" size, there will be no stampings on the top of the piston, per se. If they ARE an oversize, when you clean the carbon off of the top of the piston there should be a stamping of the appropriate oversize (i.e., .040 for .040 oversize, for example). Typically, it takes .030" overbore to get a clean, bore on a used engine from the standard production bore size. Some engines might vary in that respect, but from what I saw at the machine shop I used to frequent, that was the usual scenario. Some hot rodders went for the max overbore for an alleged edge with the additional cubic inch or so it would yield over the normal +.030 bore size. The best rule of thumb is to use the least oversize boring that will clean up the cylinder walls to fresh metal. Of course, your machine shop person will need to measure where the starting point is to determine just how much is left that can be overbored to get a good cylinder wall surface. Of course, such overbores will also require new pistons and rings and such, which can also have a bearing on how far the overbore can go too (the availability thing). Enjoy! NTX5467

Great reply, BMD67! I concur with the local vocational college classes, too, as some of that stuff you need to have "hands on" experience with and that's a good way to do it. One thing not mentioned might be to, when any bare metal is exposed from the sanding/blasting/stripping/cleaning operations, "metal prep" the newly exposed bare metal prior to the application of the first primers? Especially if there will be some time lapse between the exposure of the metal, the primer, and then the final finish coats? Years ago, we sandblasted a car and then shot some primer on it. We didn't put any color coats on it right then. About two weeks of sitting out, rust started popping through the primer. Not sure if we had too rough of a blasted finish (although we used finer sand) or if the primer didn't properly penetrate the surface texture to adhere, letting moisture from condensation inside of the "pockets" in the metal set up and start the process. At that time, I'd read the paint literature that recommended metal prep on bare metal prior to primer, but the local paint supply people said it was not necessary and I'd not known of too many body shops that did it anyway. But the body shops got the work done and painted soon and it was all done inside the shop (with a somewhat controlled environment, temperature and humidity wise), whereas ours was outside. I might add that using the plastic or glass bead media to blast with would be preferable to sand, from what I've seen. Some people like baking soda and I even know of one high end painter that uses razor blades to strip the old paint off. I think that using a safe chemical stripper would be the best way, but probably the messiest, but then you don't have to chase sand or media dust all over the shop too. In the case of smaller parts that can fit into a blast cabinet, that can be the best way to do them. Just some thoughts . . . Best of luck with your projects! NTX5467

If you can find an old automotive machine shop, if there are still any that have some older aftermarket piston listings from aftermarker sources, these catalogs should have those GM casting numbers and possibly the aftermarket crossover for the other pistons (which might already be replacement pistons) so you could track the application. Hope this helps, NTX5467

Here I am! GM did market an accessory kit to install DRLs where they didn't come from the factory for a few years after they went on their advertising blitz about how good they (DRLs) were. As you might expect, they didn't sell well NOR did Ford or Chrysler follow suit to make DRLs standard on their cars (for the USA market) back then. I seem to recall that GM even went on a lobbying effort to get DRLs made mandatory for USA registered vehicles, which didn't happen either. There was a print ad and poster to help sell the DRL kits that showed a man standing in front of a line of cars in the distance (seems like it was a main highway through the Florida Keys). Some had the headlights on and other didn't, to indicate the greater visibility of a DRL equipped vehicle. Greyhound Bus Lines initiated the "drive with your headlights on" deal back in the early '60s. Their accident rates dropped significantly back then after they did that. JC Whitney even had kits to install an auxiliary light in the grille of vehicles back then to achieve the same effect. In modern times, GM vehicle would turn on the DRLs anytime the vehicle was started AND the parking brake was released IN a drive gear. The tail lights did not automatically illuminate for obvious reasons. This led to some people driving after dark with no tail lights (but full headlights)! Seems like they were using full voltage to run the headlights as DRLs back then too? As things evolved, they used an ambient light sensor (in the middle of the instrument panel pad) to turn on the DRLS and then the tail lights as light conditions dictated. This is how GM started advertising that their vehicle had "automatic headlights", that was different from the Twilight Sentinel of earlier times, as it also controlled the intensity of the headlights. Another evolution was that high beams were used instead of low beams, due to the fact that all lights have an "hour rating" for their life. Low beams were the main head light and high beams weren't. I questioned the lower voltage for the DRL mode headlights as a light at a lower voltage might not last as long as a light operating at full design voltage. In later times, the amber turn signals were used, as one Olds seminar pointed out, the turn signal bulbs were cheaper to replace when they burned out (and weren't related to the life of the headlights) to replace. In later years, DRLs became a separate light in more recent GM vehicle front light assemblies. I used to drive with the low beams on all the time--and always remembered to turn them off before I locked the car. GM also markets (or used to) a real simple-to-wire-in headlight warning buzzer similar to what they used in regular production in the '70s (likes on my '77 Camaro). Something of that nature could be wired in or necessary items procurred from Radio Shack or similar, I suspect. All you have to do is detect reverse voltage flow and put a buzzer in the circuit to warn when that happens. Just for the record, there are also some simple "basic" vehicle security systems that sense negative voltage flow (i.e., when a dome light comes on and the alarm is armed) as their alarm trigger. Other security systems are wired such that you have to have something else turned on (i.e., head lights) before the vehicle will start (as a "starter circuit interrupt" feature). Many vehicles in the later '70s had "Headlight On" warning buzzers in their chime modules as standard equipment. I concur that a "produced kit" approach to the DRL addition would be the best way to go, but then getting in the habit of turning on the headlights when you started the car and turning them off as the last thing you do before getting out of the car can work too. This is where the "headlight on warning buzzer" would come in handy. I also like the idea of using the amber bulb parking lights as DRLs instead of using headlights, but that might be more personal preference than anything. Key thing is to make your vehicle be noticed instead of being invisible (as those Greyhound busses must have been before they turned on their headlights). If you go on a drive in the country where the roads are long and have few curves or hills, you can definitely see the oncoming vehicle a longer way ahead with some sort of DRL (where the headlights "full-on" are better). You'll hopefully see them anyway, but having the headlights on makes it happen sooner in any weather. Hope this helps untangle some of the DRL situation. Enjoy! NTX5467

To do a "correct" restoration that is "body off", you first need to understand how the vehicle progresses through the assembly line. For example, you have a completed body shell that is all welded and bolted together when it goes into the primer dip tank (whether it's primer black or oxide might be open to discussion). You might look for some old advertising literature that might show this operation as when the electrostatic dip primer was introduced in the '60s, it was something the advertising people liked to talk about. As for what the correct color and the areas it's sprayed onto, you might have to do some salvage yard reconnaisance of vehicles of your general vintage AND plant. Even if GM had one set of assembly instructions for a particular vehicle, if that model was built in different plants, things could vary sometimes. For example, if they ran out of one color of undercoat or primer from a particular vendor, they could have gotten some temporary supplies from another vendor in either that color or another "acceptable" color to keep things up and running. So, you have a body shell, from the cowl rearward, as the basic unit. From what we saw in our several tours of the Arlington Assembly Plant in the early '90s, the completed body shell mates to the frame. Then the core suppport is added and sits loose on the frame horns. Then comes the fenders on each side to complete the core support to cowl structure. Then the hood and other front sheetmetal items. In the case of the Caprices, the front header panel/grille assembly was attached after the core support was loosely put into place, then the fenders, then the hood, in pretty much that sequence. Something of this sequence should cover most any body/frame construction vehicle, I suspect. When the paint work is on the body, none of the front sheet metal is hung on the vehicle, but is done at the same time. Having the spray equipment calibrated correctly ensures a consistent color/texture situation. Now, the paint is electrostatically charged just as the primer tank was. In combination with the High Volume, Low Pressure turbo-bell spray equipment, this reduces overspray and material costs plus a nicer job. Some paint work done on the hood, fenders, and other front sheet metal will probably be done by hand. This would be the "cutting-in" process where the edges of the sheet metal is first sprayed with body color before the rest of the outer portions of the panel are sprayed by the robots. This would also include door jamb areas too. I suspect that as time progresses, some of this work could be programmed into some robot's job duty. So, let's say that the body was dipped into a primer vat of red oxide primer for that operation, all of the basic undercoat paint on the body shell would be that color. From there, no other paint would be directly put on the underside of the body shell per se. When the other painting operations were performed, it would then be possible that as they shot the rocker panel areas, that some overspray would migrate onto the lower body shell areas along the outer edges as a normal situation. When you get the body off of the frame and clean things up, you might observe this. Again, how much could depend on who was doing the painting at the factory. The fenders and other front sheet metal would not go through the larger body dip vat, but through their own primer line at point of production. GM typically used the black satin primer on those sheet metal items, inside and out. Some, over the years, have shown evidence of also being dipped (due to sags and runs in the primer). Same color they still put on their replacement sheet metal. I suspect that this same black primer would be applied over whatever color that was in the big dip vat that the body shell went through. This way, a uniform color would be on the panels prior to the application of the color coats (and clear top coats on later model vehicles that use a base coat/clear coat paint system). One thing that amazed us when we went through the Arlington Assembly facility was the front fender installation. We'd seen the body kerplunk down into the frame mounts at the body drop ares. We'd later seen where the front header panel assembly was loosely sitting on the front frame horns. We saw this configuration emerge from a turnaround area of the line, but then here comes the vehicle through the curtain, out from behind another curtain comes an assembly person with a completed fender/fender skirt assembly. The person walks up, positions the completed fender assembly between the header panel and cowl, inserts 5 or 6 bolts, zips them in, does final alignments, and tightens them down--and walks away--in less than 2 minutes max. We all stood there and had to see it done a few more times before we could walk on with the tour. The comment was made " . . . you know how long it too me to wrestle with aligning the fender on my car???? and here they just walk up and put the bolts in, tighten them down, and WALK AWAY!!" This is another key to assembly line production that many in the field haven't considered--"off line assembly" where individual components are assembled prior to installation in the vehicle. Instrument panels are another great thing to have assembled before you install them and the air conditioning/heater module is covered up. Beats laying on your back in the floor with the front seat out! Of course, you will need some space in the shop to do this too, plus be able to walk it into and out of the car. In order to do a top notch restoration, using the correct coatings/paint is a must. Just because a vendor sells "chassis black" doesn't mean it's of the correct gloss (typically satin instead of gloss) for your vehicle. GM does sell their chassis black primer in gallon cans in a set of 4. It's listed in the GM Standard Parts Catalog and there are also some spray can versions too (or at least there used to be). It's not a "hard" satin and will fingerprint. I've found that for underhood and frame rail detailing that GM Black Engine Paint works great for anything that's black under the hood. It is an exact match for the black air cleaner paint plus accessory brackets on the engine. It might say "gloss" on the label, but it's not a super hard glossy finish. GM part number 12346297 and is sold in 6-can units, but if a dealer has it in regular stock, you can buy it individually. I would use it pretty much anywhere on the frame, front suspension, rear axle, and most anywhere else on the chassis that a satin black finish is needed and observed. GM never put glossy paint in many places that people seem to think it came from the factory with--at least in the '60s and up. As for spray undercoat, GM typically didn't put anything on the underbody of the cars, but would put some in the wheel well areas in many cases. You can observe your own vehicle to determine how much and where it went. As for cleaning, you might consider plastic media for blast cleaning instead of sand. But, I suspect that some sort of cleaning solution would be best unless there's some rust you're trying to get rid of. Plus, don't degrade any body/seal sealers with such blasting cleaning--but you can use modern products to replace them if you damage them (check the expansive 3M catalog for the correct product). You mentioned something about colors not matching exactly from the same paint when you painted things at different times. I'm not sure why that's happening unless the items painted first are in direct sunlight and are fading or something. I'm not sure if flourescent lights might cause the same situation. Not something I've heard others mention, even when they do similar things and leave them setting for months. All paint will fade, even if it's just a notch or two from the original color value. In the case of metallics, having a fully mixed/agitated paint stock is important just as having the exact same air pressure each time is. Air pressure variations will make the same exact metallic paint look different due to the way the metallic flecks lay out and are distributed when they are applied to the body panels--even with the same base color stock paint. I've seen some spot repairs that look good in color match and texture, but when the sun hits them you can tell where the repair was due to the reflections of the metallic particles. In any case, when you disassembly and carefully clean the parts from your car, what you observe THEN should dictate how it goes back together and is painted. I some cases, there will be some items that are "cast natural" or "natural" that will have some surface rust. There are some "cast blast" spray paints that can approximate those colors, but sometimes you will have to experiment with different brands/colors of the same color description to find what best matches what was there originally--or clear coat them after cleaning. It might take a little more time and effort to get these things matched correctly, but it will pay off later when everything is done! Also pay attention to the beloved paint daub inspection marks and other grease pencil marks as you clean. Even take some pictures so you can reproduce them when final assembly is done. These marks are where line inspectors made sure that bolt torque/installation was correct as the vehicle went down the line. An important quality control issue on the line. Some of these colors are common colors, but the paint stamps can be procurred from many restoration sources for GM vehicles. Just another little touch that make things "complete" when done. Next thing up would be the underhood decals and such. Several sources for these, but they'll be the last touch when you're done. They would be applied in the later stages of final assembly at the plant, I suspect, as they might vary from vehicle to vehicle due to equipment choices. In many cases, what GM is currently using for primers and basic chassis paint is what they've used for years. You can look at the late model light trucks (still body/frame construction) to get an idea of where you need to be on some things. One thing that really tells me that the restorer did a good job would be the nuts/bolts/clips/fasteners they used--which are the exact same ones used at the factory. Many of these things are available in the reproduction areas and possibly from body shop supply sources. You might get your friends in the body shop to put you in touch with their nut/bolt vendor for the clips. GM also catalogs a multitude of nuts/bolts in their GM Standard Parts catalog. You'll need to know the thread specs and material coating specs in many cases. As times progress and assembly techniques vary, some of the things that used to be in there tend to diminish, but there's still some listed in there. Otherwise, the aftermarket might be a good supply source. One thing I don't like to see is hardware store bolts!!! Just my preference, but they tend to stand out bigtime from the normal oxide finish factory items. Salvage yards can also be a good source for them too. Correct bolt, correct place, correct finish on the bolt are key items. I've put a lot of information in here and it might take a while to digest it all, but it's not all that complicated, usually, but just takes some attention to detail and seeing how things come apart so you can put them back together in a renewed/refurbished state to look like what they did when the vehicle was new. Duplicating sealer runs and globs is up to you, though, lol. Some things from the salvage yards, some from good vendors, some from GM and other sources. Hope this helps and good luck with your project, NTX5467

From what I've seen, the "GSX" is a package put together by a conversion company that licenses facilities to install it in particular metro areas.. Several different additions are available kind of like the way that you could pick and choose with additions in the Camaro Z-28 "SS" or Firebird "Firehawk" vehicles (done by SLP when the completed vehicles were shipped to them from the assembly plant). I like the idea of the "GSX", but wish it was more "factory" stuff. SLP had a "GTX" package for the 2003 or so Grand Prixs that was pretty neat. I suspect the "GSX" is pretty similar in content. The whole product mix sounds pretty good, but I wish it would all be online by 2006, especially that "coupe" thing! Sounds like "Son of Riv"? Thanks for posting that article, Roberta! Now we have an idea of what's supposed to be happening. Now, where is that 40th Anniversary Camaro? Enjoy! NTX5467