Dave@Moon
-
Posts
7,882 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Gallery
Events
Posts posted by Dave@Moon
-
-
I've used them several times. No complaints.<P>Cough
. -
51,<P>The hold down bolt posting was for a 1962 Starfire (I was the one who had the problem with an early 1960 Falcon). I used to have a 51 Pontiac 8 and I remember it also has a very heavy air cleaner for it's carb, so that may be the problem (check especially to see if the studs/holes are stripped which would allow them to loosen quickly after the second carb installation). <P>If not, you could have the same symptoms from a loose manifold on a straight 8 (or 4 or 6). Anything that causes sideways momentum to open up a vaccuum leak could be the culprit.<P>Good luck.
-
The Apollo took the badge engineering of GM that critical step forward, where the entire internal and external structure of the car was shared. Chevelles and Skylarks were cousins under the skin, the N.O.V.A. series were identical twins (in some instances excepting the engines) which were given different nametags to wear. <P>All of those cars were fine cars, and GM deserves credit for having a reasonably competative car in the compact range (my boyhood friend's family 1972 Nova which had to be scrapped for structural rust in 1975 aside). Unfortunately, since these were so successful, and since Ford and Chrysler were able to also sell clones in this price bracket, all the U.S. manufacturers began cloning everything instead of developing considered and cohesive marque designs (now called "brand image"
).<P>As a result, when Chevy sneezed, the rest of GM... well, you know the rest. -
However they work, replace all the brakes, even the lines if they're origional. You may want to put in a dual master cylinder, I would if I were driving this car around here (and especially if I were going to tow with it). As long as you don't molest the rest of the car installing it, you can always revert back to stock when restoring the car.<P>If you're going to trailer anything any distance, I'd install a tranny cooler regardless of what tranny you use. I have a good friend who ruined a 400 cubic inch Pontiac towing a VW bug 3000 miles. Again, don't do anything you'd regret later.
-
I've never made money on a car, but I've profited from all of them.
-
Foriegn Sports Cars. Nothing says undervalued more than this. Every 2 door V8 Chevy ever made is worth more than my TR6. It amazes me that Jaguar XK's and Austin Healey's, the cream of value in sports cars, are blown away by the very Ford and Chevy's that some deride as poor imitations of their panache. <P>If you've got $6000 and want the best, most fun, most interesting and distinctive car you can buy for it, your choice is between four door American sedans and MG's or Triumphs. No brainer there!<P>Also, can somebody please explain to me why, as you ascend Alfred Sloan's ladder of automotive prestige (Chevy-Pontiac-Olds-Buick-Cadillac) 20 or 30 years after they've been produced, with a few noteworthy exceptions they've reversed positions in value? As historically significant and popular as the 1955 Chevy was, it was not as good a car as the 1955 Olds or Caddy. Ditto for just about any year you can think of. Why are the Chevy's invariably worth more?
-
That the '78 Riviera looks better than the '78 Tornado with the Olds motor!!<P>You're right, though, it was a while after that before the Riviera was considered a truly distinctive car again. As nice as the first FWD versions were, they were no more distinctive as "Buicks" as any of the lower line cars were.
-
When you bring a cold car into a warm garage, water condenses on it like a cold beer. It will coat all surfaces, interior and exterior, with wet (probably salty) dew. Thus you have rust (iron oxide to you Californians, you'll only find it in the lab or maybe on a pier somewhere). The water is far worse for the metal than the salt.<P>The market for 2-door cars has dropped, but really only for economy models and American luxury coupes. I don't see anyone ashamed to be seen in a Mercedes SLK or Lexus coupe. I believe that the problem is that the U.S. manufacturers never figured out the a 2-door car today HAS TO BE A DRIVER'S CAR. Soft, plush (Buick traditional?) ride won't make it in this market. After years of LTD II rides, its getting hard to get people to swallow that as a sign of quality.<P>And thus my point on the Riv, it wasn't that bad on any point (although I know some people who really hated the body, for reasons they and I can't explain). Why didn't it sell? <P>And if GM can kill off one of their best image brands for the sake of making a plant closing more convienent, how long do you think it'll be before there aren't any seperate GM brands? Their market share is now lower than it has been in almost 75 years!
-
It's only spumoni people! There's a guy down the road from me who loves Yugos, and owns 5 or 6 of them. I might think he's nuts, but I'm not going to burn a cross in his yard. <P>Here's one car I thought would get mentioned here right away, but hasn't, the last Riviera. There appears to be a lot of people who can't stand it's looks. I think it's gorgeous, and would've sold in droves if a real GS option (big dollar, real BMW M5 handling and performance) were offered. Of course that would just be for image, the volume car would've supported itself being tied in to that image. <P>If, such as it was, it was such a good car, why did it fail?
-
Saginaw 4-speeds in Skyhawks were great, when they came with the right shifter. I had a college friend who bought an Olds equivalent new, the Olds name slips my mind and does it really matter? This guilded chariot had the Saginaw 4-speed with the shifter for a Cutlass! This nerd drove this car for nearly 2 months, shifting 1-3-2-4! My roomate and I finally convinced him something was wrong, and he traded it in on a Cutlass (this was 1978). At least the dealer gave him full purchase credit, and this before there were lemon laws. <P>The reason I picked on the Apollo was because it began the process full tilt by which the Skyhawk could be made. Before the Apollo, there was always something unique on/in a car that said Buick on it besides just saying Buick on it. Even the early mid-size cars through 1972 had at least one unique drivetrain available. The Apollo was a wonderful Chevy, but it wasn't a Buick!
-
I live at the epicenter of the rust belt (Pittsburgh). We use more salt per mile each year than any other city in America. I've seen more rust damage than most people see in 2 lifetimes, and I was using Bondo to get cars through PA's corrupt inspection program when I was 8 & 9 years old. I've junked 6 year old cars (AMC) for rust, known cars to be junked @ 3 years for rust (Nova), and had to replace an entire front clip on a car for rust @ age 9 MONTHS (Aspen)!!!!!<P>No car is rustproof, and often cars develope a reputation for rusting based on how they perform relative to previous similar models. The 1957 Chrysler line was probably the single most innovative car line ever introduced by a major manufacturer. They're also among the most beautiful (except for the Dodges, those were made for people who equated chrome for beauty or status). <P>The real problem for the 1957 Chrysler rep for rust is that the previous models going back decades were among the least rust prone cars of their era. The 1957 Chryslers rusted dramatically compared to 1956 Chryslers. They were probably less rust prone than AMC, Studebaker or Ford models of those years, but that didn't matter to a clientelle that based their opinions on their experience with their older models. <P>My father was a dyed-in-the-wool Mopar man, and he never bought any Chrysler from 1957-1963. Of course the 2 Chevy's, 1 Caddy and 1 Ford we had from that era were all worse than any Mopar we had, but that didn't matter. The evil you avoid was always the greatest one (at least in your head).<P>Here's a good question, what Buick had this reputation? We've already discussed how many cars from 1970 on were really Buicks in name only, so Skyhawk horror stories come to mind but may not be to the point. Does Buick have a "Rustang" in it's past? The only car that comes to mind at all for me is the 1961 Special, and compared to it's competators I don't think any were better than it at rust avoidance. <P>Anybody?<P><p>[This message has been edited by Dave@Moon (edited 01-28-2000).]
-
This happened to me with a 1960 Falcon. My uncle (an older mechanic) didn't even look at the car when I explained it to him. He went to the parts store and bought some new gasket material and got his 1/2" wrench. He went out to the car and, without looking at them, twisted the carb mounting nuts off by hand!<P>This is a common problem on certain older cars with heavy air cleaners. The weight of the air cleaner rocks the carb back and forth with each turn of the steering wheel, loostening the nuts. Eventually, in one direction or the other, the carb rocks enough to allow air in at the manifold. This usually also damages the gasket, allowing even more air in. <P>As I recall, Starfires have a very large, heavy air cleaner on a single carb. Replace the gasket and tighten those nuts and I'll bet your problem goes away. If not, than it probably is float related.
-
Dear Bowtieollie.<P>I have a 1970 TR6 (9.5:1 compression ratio) which I only drove enough to burn 1/2 the tank last year. I filled it up with new gas this fall and put it in storage, Both loads of fuel were treated w/ Stabil. <P>Am I O.K. to use this gas next year. (I'm useing some of it now to run the car in the garage periodically through the winter). What kind of problems do older Stabil treated fuels cause in High Compression engines?
-
Interesting side note, the movie Christine destroyed 1/3 of the known remaining 1958 Furys that then existed.<P>Other wonderful things to witness: in "War of the Roses" a real Morgan is crushed by a tank, 97 1969 Chargers are destroyed to make "The Dukes of Hazard", in "The Love Bug" you can see all manner irreplacable of vintage race cars see their demise. As long as market values continue to be emphasized by our hobby, our cars will be seen by the outside world as consumer commodities and not something to be cherished for their intrinsic value (anybody @ Collectible Automobile or Special Interest Autos out there listening?).
-
The demo derby bugs me more than the crushing. I was recently @ one (my 8 yearold is a fan) where in a single heat out of 20 cars there was a 1960 Invicta, a 1966 T-Bird & a near mint 1966 Olds 98 2 door hardtop entered. Of course these were the first cars eliminated, even the Fairmont outlasted them. Nothing ever wins these things anyway except 1976 Caprice wagons.<P>Oh yea, top prize if you won: $200, a trophy and kiss. One fender off any of these cars was worth more than that.
-
A BIT GAUDY???? 200 lbs. of purely decorative chrome (i.e. not including the grille, bumper, etc.) is not a bit anything! There's a popular theory that toward the end of his career Harley Earl was hiding a problem w/ failing vision. I think that may be the only explanation for the progressive loss of cohesive design over 1956-1958. <P>And if you want to pick on 1958 uglies, the Mercury has to take the prize. Even the emblems as stand alone pieces look overdrawn. <P>I'm glad I wasn't in the market for a new car in 1958.
-
Thanks Chris. I haven't tried replacing the radiator cap yet, but I can assure it holds at least some pressure. The thermostat is new, and the cooling system seems to function perfectly. There is no guage.<P>I've not noticed any spacers on Buick fuel pump mounts, mine doesn't have one. I'll put a posting checking for any on the BCA forum.<P>With all of the carb trouble I had, when I finally got one that ran right it was an NORS rebuilt carb I bought @ Carslile. The damn thing works great but has no vaccuum to the choke thermocoil (this car has a thermocoil pull off attached to a stovepipe). Therefore, I've been running all this time w/o a choke, closing it manually when I needed to warm up the motor on cool days.<P>Finally, I would hardly say the car is running rich. I do have the carb leaned out to where it will stumble, but at that setting the car is running great, with a normal exhaust odor and (except for briefly after it's been sitting a long time) no smoke.<P>There's no flap in the air cleaner's snorkel.<P>I'll try the cap and see if it helps.
-
That's it!!! I've had it!<P>I've spent the last five minutes trying to think of a 1981 Buick WORSE than an X-car. I can't do it. It's hopeless.<P>There is none.<P>Wait a minute, it's coming to me.<P>I can almost make it out through the fog.<P>Hey, that's not fog. It's diesel exhaust.<P>Oh yeah!
-
Now its time for me to be a modern Buick's advocate! I may be the only person on earth who liked the 1991 Skylark, at least as a 2 door. As a coupe, the front end worked with the rest of the design. It was a bit overdramatic for a 4 door sedan, I'll admit.<P>I find I like a lot of cars with this problem. My 1960 LeSabre is a beautifiul coupe. It also makes a great looking convertible and is at least passable as a 4 door "flattop" hardtop. As a wagon or a sedan, I'll admit the car looks like Batman's milk truck.<P>I also used to have 2 Mopars like this, 1970 Duster and 1969 Coronet 500 coupes. Their coupes and converitbles were gorgeous, but as 4 doors they just didn't make it. I still think the 1970 Coronet wagon is the most unintentionally funny/humorous looking car ever built.<P>If anyone tells you "I used to hate the looks of these cars, but now I don't mind them so much", its usually because they used to see a lot more sedans and wagons and a lot less coupes of the car in question.
-
O.K., I give up. I'm the only one with fuel percolation problems.
-
The X cars (Skylark 1980-85) had more than problems! They were on the market for a few weeks when they had to be recalled because the spare tire wouldn't fit the front hub! How'd you like to be the lucky owner who volunteered for that little bit of R & D?<P>I must say my personal experience w/ J-bodies was probably worse, however. By then (1982) I was out of the U.S. car loop, and would stay so for the next 14 years. My wife's best friend had an '84 which was bought for her new by a wealthy aunt (so she couldn't unload it!). For three years this car would lose all electrical power except ignition in hard left turns. No dealer could find the problem or fix it. For some reason, I think it was bought out of state, it wasn't covered under lemon laws either. That car lost GM several loyal customers in her family.<P>Also I'm really glad somebody else found the 1991 Roadmaster to be an overweight lame duck like me. To me the problem was that it owed to much styling heritage to the 1971-1976 cars, but didn't really have the bulk to pull it off. The wagon especially looks ridiculous, with that huge loooking body perched on that undersized platform. I think the car looks like a 5'3" bodybuilder.<P>A few last questions, am I to guess that everyone thinks the B-58 Limited was a rolling work of art? Everyone loves the '39 grille? No one regrets what Fisher Body did to Harley Earl's 1929 design? Everyone's OK with red wheel wells? All of the air suspension cars are holding up OK?
-
O.K., so much for the easy ones, now to start some real arguments!<P>By the way, I one had a 1980 Skylark co. car that got a consistant 15 mpg, that's not economical at that size. My father once unloaded a 1977 Estate Wagon because it only got 12 mpg!<P>Now to one that will bug somebody, I've always disliked the 1950 model. I think the 1949 Buick was one of the cleanst, purest designs from GM ever. The '50 model began a period of baroque styling that added visual and real weight to the car's appearance. It was decades before GM got away from the concept that a good car was an unnecessarily heavy one. <P>The 1950 Buick was as well made a car as ever. Mechanically there is little here to fault (except for what I'm told is inadequate braking). Some people even prefer the heavy chrome laden front of this car (but their insurance co.'s didn't). I however think that it began the process of leaving the door open for Raymond Lowey, Bob Bourke and Virgil Exner to steal the styling leads from Harley Earl. <P>After all, it is better to look good than the run good!<P>Comments, anyone????
-
In the spirit of 59BuickEnthusiast's posting on favorite Buicks, I'd like to start one on which ones we'd like to get rid of if we could. When reading and posting on this one, bear in mind that you WILL be offending someone with your choice and you WILL be offended when someone chooses your car. We don't all like spumoni, so be tolerant!<P>If there is any one Buick I'd get rid of its one that I wouldn't mind as a daily driver, but I think began a process which hurt the marque immeasurably. That is the Buick Apollo from the 1970's. When Buick dealers became just another GM store with this one, the division lost more than its identity, it lost its mission, too. It took 20 years and cars like the Reatta to recover some from this.
-
This is going to be a long story. I've had this problem for years and noone seems to be able to help. I'm geting no response to the BCA posting, so I'll repeat it here.<P>In essence, my problem seems to be that, until I modified it, the fuel in the carb and lines along the engine was boiling as shutoff. When I shut the car off after it was up to temperature, gas would begin to seep out of the bowl vent AND through the gasketed surfaces of the carburator. This seepage was rapid enough to create a drip rate off of the carburator linkage of 1-2 drops per second until the bowl was dry. This was a huge fire hazzard, and I was having to run out to the hood each time and put absorbant pads under the carb to soak up the gas. The fumes were so bad I had to let the car cool off outside before putting it in the (in house) garage.<P>It's important to keep in mind that absolutely no leekage would occur until shutoff. Not a drop!<P>Gas was also found in increasing quantities in the crankcase oil, which I eventually attributed to boiling gas being forced down the carburator throat at shutoff. In fact, this is where the gas first began to appear, the external seepage came shortly afterward.<P>This problem was only minor in nature when I bought the car in 1995. Within a year and a half, however it became very serious. I'd not seen this on any other car, and I still haven't to this degree yet. If gas had not been forced out of the carb, I'd have blamed the fuel pump for the gas in the crankcase. Also if the crankcase wasn't vented by the road draft tube, i.e. if I had a stuck PCV, the fuel pump could've been allowing crankcase pressures (bad rings?) to push the fuel out via a blown diaphragm. Unfortunately, neither scenario applies. Therefore I never tried replacing the fuel pump (with a stock type replacemnt). <BR> <BR>I first blamed the carburator, a WW-2 Stromberg 2 barrel. I figured that it had to be the problem since that's where the fuel is comong from. After 2 different carbs were rebuilt 2-4 times each, the last one a professional rebuild, I gave up and bought a NOS rebuilt carb, figuring I was dealing with carb body warpage. Still no success.<P>I then learned about the low boiling point of today's "gas" from a professional carburator rebuilder in Missouri. I was told that today's fuel will begin to boil @ 150 degrees F, and boil dry at about 225 degrees F. He advised me to install a thick insulator between the carb and manifold. I did, no real improvement. I couldn't find a heat insulator kit for a 2 brl. carb, so I started to make one out of 1/8" aluminum plate, a very complicated task for this car because of linkage interference. I was about to install this UGLY insullator when I talked to an engine rebuilder locally who suggested using an electric fuel pump.<P>I finally fixed the car by installing an electric fuel pump in the rear. Using this, and re-routing the fuel line away from the engine, did the trick. The car now functions perfectly, albeit with a noisy pump in the rear and a decidedly non-stock looking fuel line in the engine compartment. <P>You should understand that the 1960 Buick 364 engine is a huge piece of metal, and generates tons of heat. 8-10 hours after I park the car in the garage the room is still noticably warm from engine heat. Also the Stromberg WW-2 is a tiny carb for such a large engine. My car has the (very expensive) optional low compression motor for regular gas (in 1960), the only combo which used a Stromberg in a Buick by 1960. (They are quite common on Buicks as late as 1956). <P>With this odd combo, I'm sure my car is especially vulnerable to fuel percolation or boiling. It is such a rare combination (I'd say less than 1% of 1960 production) I can get little or no advice on the subject. Also the earlier cars, which have a taller, more exposed intake system, probably aren't as apt to have this happen as mine is.<P>The only suggestion I've gotten from the BCA posting was to check for a stuck bypass valve, the Buick has an exhaust passage under the carb in the intake for heat. The valve is not stuck, it's quite free and I assume it therefore still functions. The passage in the manifold was found to be completely blocked with carbon from leaking valve cover and manifold gaskets in the middle of all this. Clearing the passage did not affect the problem. <P>My question is very simple, what am I missing? The car runs great! It has 175 Lbs compression in each cylinder and gets 17 mpg on the highway. I am, however, badly fouling plugs (black carbon) after only about 1000 miles (I've put about 10K miles on the car in 5 years). This with the carb set as lean as possible w/o stumbling at idle. <P>I love this car, and I could probably drive it indefinately with the electric pump and periodic plug changes. But I want to fix it. Besides, the electric fuel pump does make quite an annoying racket. At the 1999 Buick Nationals I saw about 15 similar cars, one with a Stromberg (the first I've seen besides mine). None of them needed this fix. They all had the same minor fuel staining of the carb that you typically see on any drivien car these days.<P>Somebody, somewhere knows the fix for this. I hope they read this posting.
Body Work
in Technical
Posted
I've been told that lacquer thinner is called that because it thins the paint and is not incorporated in the finish at all (completely evaporating), while enamel reducer is partially incorporated into the finish (which cures rather than dries). Chemically they are more or less the same, being made up of varying proportions of aliphatic and aromatic compounds.<P>By the way, off spec batches of these things tend to turn up in some cheap high test gasolines.