SBRMD

Do you happen to know whether these exhaust items will also work on a 1971 350 LeSabre? Thanks in advance, Steve.

Nobody??

Well, the 87's are for a car with a 124" wheelbase. Sounds like yours are for an intermediate; maybe a 112" wheelbase car, or a 115", with variation for wheel well diameters. Thanks anyway!

I don't have a part number, but it measures 87 3/8" Thanks in advance for looking, Pete.

Well, thought I had one, but I guess not. Anybody else know of/have one? Thanks in advance, Steve.

Excellent! Thanks Jerry, I will call you this week. Best regards, Steve.

Painting a 1971 Sedan and have found that my munched molding is beyond help. Anybody have/know of a straight one? I believe I've got the right interchange models above; the '73 won't work because it comes up the door. This one covers the rocker only. Thanks in advance, Steve.

Pat, I have a '49 Roadmaster Dynaflow, and have interest in the 3.6 to replace what I have (I think it's the 4.1), but here's my concern: If all the revving off the line is such a concern, doesn't the 3.6 make the car even more of a slug from a stop? Thanks in advance for the education, Steve.

I have a serviceable original that I might be willing to part with: complete but kind of dirty, minor cracks in the rubber. I think I'm going to all-carpet; not original, but I like it better. Let me know: SBRMD@AOL.COM or 612-812-0668 Best regards, Steve.

So....tell us the story! Best regards, Steve.

I will step aside on these. Thanks anyway, Chris.

Would like to dibs these pending photos; also, are you sure they are 5 x 5" bolt pattern and 7" wide? Please double check. Would appreciate if you could post pics here, or e-mail: sbrmd@aol.com Thanks in advance, Steve.

Would like to see pics of the Model 91. SBRMD@AOL.COM By the way, where are you/the car located? Thanks in advance, Steve.

Jakes: This is off-subject, but let's see a pic of your '49! Thanks in advance, Steve in Mpls (fellow '49 Roadmaster Sedanet owner)

I got one for my '65 Sportwagon, and the back of it was engraved "194", although I don't know if that reflects the number of cars before mine that got the award.

Thanks guys! I'm thinking it's the ignition switch. Anybody (maybe somebody w/ a Hollander) have any idea whether an ignition switch from a '68 GTO would work in a '65 Sportwagon? I happen to have an extra one around here somewhere... Thanks again in advance, Steve.

Can you guys tell me what's wrong here? My '65 (300 4V) lately continues to crank after I turn the key back to the "off" position. Keeps cranking as I turn key every which way, finally stops after several seconds. It did this for about a week, and finally yesterday, while cranking strongly (battery seemingly ok), it suddenly fell silent, with no action at all with the key in any position, including no idiot lights. I removed the key, left for a while, came back to find the idiot lights on with the ignition switch in the off/locked position (no key). Disconnected the battery, had arcing at the neg post. Is it a bad ignition switch, or something else? All opinions welcome! Thanks in advance, Steve.

Adam, Kudos on the award! That car is beautiful in every respect, better than new under the hood, as I told you in person! Chatting with you was a highlight of the show for me; you're really a pleasant, right-minded guy, and that kind of collegial visiting is really what makes these shows fun. As we discussed, got another one for you.....giving it serious thought. Best regards, Steve

Thanks for your replies, Matt and 95C, points taken and I appreciate your input. 95C: When you incorprate a handling charge, do you tell the buyer about that component beforehand?

Thanks for your input, 49.

Thanks for your input, JD, I appreciate it. His pictures were not sharp enough, and the lighting not direct enough, to show how scratched up the latches are; I heard his description, thought his pics supported it, and the reality of the parts are a far cry from the pictures. So you're right, you look at pictures and take your chances, but you obviously have to rely on a seller to be straight with you too, because the pics often time can't tell the whole story. But nevertheless, even if I'm being a little picky...seriously, how is that part reasonably called "perfect"?

Buicksplus: Thanks for your input. My question on that latch though, is this: is it fair to call that part "perfect", or is it average used? "Perfect" is a pretty strong word to me, and not a relative one. Understood that the latch is not bad for a used part, but I have nicer ones on my car already, and when I hear "perfect", I think it's an upgrade from my used parts. One look at that picture should tell you how disappointed I was, expecting a "perfect" part when the seller said it was "perfect" repeatedly. Is it fair to tell someone that latch is "perfect"? Relative to the shipping: there was no discussion about "handling". The guy used usps's box (free) and minimal packing material (undoubtedly free or near-free as well). In my experience, a seller SAYS it's S&H if it's S&H, doesn't find out shipping and then pad it without a discussion. I've bought many parts from private parties on this site, V8Buick and others, and almost 100% of the time, the shipping label checks out with the price I was charged, unless of course the seller discussed the S&H and what constitutes it beforehand. Thanks again in advance for your opinions.

In communicating about the same prospective deal, the seller sent me two pictures of door latches/handles, as I had expressed interest to him specifically about latches and handles. One of the pictures is attached. He also sent other pictures of other parts in various groupings, eg grille, horn ring, etc. I then made him an offer for, and told him I was sending money, for the "complete latch assemblies" that I saw in that picture. When the package arrived, the handles were not included. Question: Do you think seeing a picture like the one he sent me would lead you to believe that you were making a deal for all of what was in the picture? Do you think "complete latch assemblies" describes the whole of what's in the picture, after having viewed it? Additionally, I asked this seller how much for shipping? He replied $14.00, which I paid. When the box (the standard usps box, not like it was extra charge; also, just a little bubble wrap and newspaper stuffing) arrived, the shipping charge on it read $10.40. I know I personally always just charge a person the actual cost of shipping when I sell a part. Does what he did with the shipping seem right? Finally, when I objected to first a few of these things and ultimately all of them, and expressed the expectation of either the handles or a partial refund, and then the desire several times to reverse the whole deal for a full refund including the $14.00, with my paying the return shipping (so we each would have paid one way), he refused, called me names, said he already did me a special favor by making a special trip to the post office when UPS comes to his business, and said in so many words that he wouldn't do it because I didn't ask him nicely enough. What do you all think about this seller's conduct? I just want to know if what I'm thinking is accurate. Thanks in advance for alll your responses to all three parts of this poll.

Sorry, that picture is too blown-up to show the gouges well; there are about six gouges along the spine, leaving it naked of chrome and bumpy along the center spine.

The same seller, when asked about the condition of the chrome on this bombsight, specifically whether it was pitted or worn, said no, just dull. The picture he sent me did not depict the rear of the assembly well, mostly just the front. Took his word for it, wasn't concerned about dull chrome, just defects that would cause me to rechrome, which I want to avoid for obvious reasons. The part I received, just out of the wrappings and exactly as I received it, is shown in the attached picture. Question: Do you think the omission of describing the gouges on the spine of this piece constitutes a misrepresentation of this item?