ranchero

FS - 1982 Buick Riviera convertible Year - 1982 Make - Buick Model - Riviera convertible (model 4EZ67) Price - $10,000 Description - excellent, correct, original, dry, western car Color - Arctic white, white top Interior - red leather (like every other one) Miles - 38,000 Engine - 307 Oldsmobile V-8 Location - Cheyenne, Wyoming Note - bought from Barney Smith collection (Denver) in 2000 Contact - John W. Whitehead: 307-634-1777 or jwwwy@hotmail.com

1 - 1994 Roadmaster wagon - all available options; woodie delete. 2 - 1982 Riviera convertible - all available options. 3 - 1979 Ford LTD wagon - only options: 351 Windsor; air; luggage rack; AM-FM cassette. 3 - 1969 Ford Falcon Futura wagon - only options: 302 Windsor V-8; C-4 automatic; Philco AM radio; power steering; remote driver door rear view mirror; tinted windshield; "2 Way Magic Doorgate" (no power brakes, no air). - ranchero -

Tom - I have an '82 Riviera convertible that I will sell for $9,500 firm. Mileage is about 38,000 (I will have to check exact figure later). This is a white car. Paint is original. Bumper fillers are all intact. Car is excellent and original. Convertible top is correct white and it was a new replacement for original top in the year 2000. Rear glass is not yellowed; a correct Riviera convertible top is glass only. My car is a 307 Oldsmobile V-8. I am third owner; car is an always western and dry car. Original selling dealer was Walt Adams Buick in Glendale, AZ. Car sold again in 1987 in Phoenix & moved to Denver. I bought car from Denver in 2000 and moved it to Cheyenne, Wyoming at that time. Car has most options available in 1982. Ranchero/J. W. Whitehead/Cheyenne, WY/BCA 33109/jwwwy@hotmail.com

This is refreshing. This is a much more informed discussion than those that have previously appeared here; there are many more informed consumers out there. The federal politicians have so skewered the oil industry; it has to be obvious that they are simply deflecting blame from themselves. The industry is ultra efficient and a good investment vehicle for all of us. The politicians produce nothing and only interfere with the free market discovery, production, refining and distribution of finished fuels. To wit, the boobs in the federal government could quickly fix the following: - cost of ethanol additive by lifting tariffs on imported ethanol - requiring the use only of difficult to transport ethanol as an additive - the failure in the last energy bill to provide liability protection to MTBE producers - the proliferation of mandated specialized gasoline blends for different areas - reduction in federal gasoline taxes (last raised under the Clinton administration) In the longer term, the feds could do the following fixes: - encourage construction of refineries by tax policy and elimination of excessive permitting hurdles - encourage rather than restrict the drilling for the resource in America and off the coasts, regardless of environmental activist complaints - end subsidization of ethanol production; make it be competitive in the market - encourage through tax incentives, fuel standards, etc. the production/consumption of diesel automobiles to the level of use in Europe As a note, our local refinery is expanding capacity, primarily to meet upcoming lower sulphur diesel content mandates. Those five cylinder Mercedes diesels running all around Europe look quite appealing to me now. I rode in one for four days in Germany earlier this month; the car was remarkably refined for a diesel - fast and quiet.

Received in Cheyenne, Wyoming Tuesday 14 March. Ranchero

The one not to buy? Probably the one I've got - a Roadmaster wagon. Please be assured that a Roadmaster wagon is a fine car, but mine has proven to be an extremely effective repellant to females, especially any in teenage/20s years; they hate it. It is also huge and probably impossible for a careless and young driver to operate without hitting various things. So, though I love mine, I would say the one Buick not to get for a female teenager would be the Roadmaster wagon. Of course if the idea is that she use it only for limited purposes and not to carry other teens around town, the Roadmaster is the ideal method to keep her friends out of her car; humiliation is a strong emotion.

Well that local dealer got the Lucerne brochures; the rack was jammed full when I stopped by this morning. Salesmen were busy selling red tag GMC SUVs though. Mid-level Northstar V-8 seems just about right, especially with slate & blue guts. The more I look the more I like the interior. Controls make sense and that is a clean, well designed insturment panel. I do not like front wheel drive nor a four door sedan, but the warranty is good. However will a bankrupt GM back the warranty? Seriously, can one risk spending so much money on a warrantied car that is sold by a company so very close to bankruptcy? Advise! I guess a lease is the way to get one. I like the car. The front end could look better; the headlights are too big and the grille is a bit too old fart Buick. But the rear 1/2 of the car rear looks great - very BMW like. The roofline, rear side windows and tail lights are perfection. I want one but don't trust GM. Still like my '94 Roadmaster wagon but I am quite sure this Lucerne would be a lot nicer every day driver. The Roadie has a lot of miles and a long expired warranty but it is still a well made rear wheel drive car and still has no creaks or squeaks. Would hate to get a new Lucerne and have it creaking after six months or so and I don't trust GM to make a car that won't creak. - Ranchero - liking it but very unsure and not trusting GM

Today I inspected the one and only Lucerne our local Buick dealer has. This one was a six cylinder car; the salesman informed me that the Northstar Lucerne is not yet being made (?). Also not yet available were any sales brochures (is this a good way to introduce a new car?). The interior is the best part of the car. It is very well designed. This one had bucket seats with a console - very nice. There is a tach. The controls are well thought out. Also the rear legroom is amazing - like a BMW 7 series. The cruise control on that Dodge Charger is pure Mercedes. It is quite easy and logical to use when you drive the car daily. - Ranchero -

Well my wife, for the first time since we've been married, noticed a Buick ad on TV and told me so. I have not seen it, but the subject is the heated windshield washer system in a Lucerne. This is amazing progress for a stylish, smart, professional woman to notice an advertisement for a Buick! I like the Lucerne a lot. The style - both inside and out - is great. I like the Northstar V-8. The interior looks wonderful; I like the easy to use, big controls. The colors are good. The new, longer warranty is quite welcome. I would prefer a coupe - a Riviera version about four inches shorter. I do not like a four door sedan. And I would prefer rear wheel drive. But I will not rule out the Lucerne despite these issues. I would not buy one as GM is simply too much of a financial risk for me to own a three or so year old used GM car, with still some warranty remaning, when I get tired of the car and want to trade on something else. I would consider the car on a good two or three lease deal, but I don't want to be stuck with a nice Buick with a year remaining on a warranty from a bankrupt GM. Interior colors could be better and have more variety. A dark brown, red or blue would be appreciated. Yet I like the car and would lease it if there was a deal. Sorry, but that is what GM has come to. Respectfully submitted - Ranchero

Dave at Moon says "I'm more convinced it's because white people run those companies". Isn't that comment as racist the use of "Jap"? White people run Microsoft, E-Bay, Pepsico and Johnson & Johnson. Any problem with the white folks' management of those companies? Or do you just dislike white people? Sky King: No, maybe American companies can not take money back here from sales of cars in Japan however GM is doing so from Buicks made in Shanghai and sold in China. That is a little good news to go with the fleets of Boeings that are being sold to China. Clearly the problem with production of automobiles in America is not the American worker but rather it is the UAW. The non-union plants in the south ( making Japanese, Korean or German vehicles) are doing quite well and pay hourly rates very close to what the union factories in the more expensive north pay for UAW labor. However the southern plants do not have the burden of defined benefit retirement programs nor of retiree & retiree family health care benefits - generous giveaways cemented into the financial plan back in the times of Bel Airs, Galaxies and Star Chiefs The UAW/big three partnership was sealed decades ago. It was an experiment in European type social benefits (socialism, if you will) for America's then largest and most important industry. At that time, any weakness of GM and the American auto industry was not conceivable; a Volkswagen beetle was an insignificant bump on Harlow Curtice's rear. The concept (and the partners) have failed because of competition from nimbler, more efficient car makers - first foreign producers who nibbled away and now from Americans making cars for foreign owned companies. It is creative destruction. Consumers are well served; we now have better, safer, more durable, more reliable and more competitive cars. Non-union workers in the south have great new jobs that did not exist there for their parents. And investors in Toyota and Nissan thrive. Who loses are the union workers and the investors in GM and Ford. This is change and is to be expected with competition. Note also that there are no longer workers at nor companies with the names like "New York Central", "Eastern Air Lines", "Admiral" or "Bethlehem Steel". - Ranchero -

Centurion - Great photos. These belong on the next book on automobile dealerships. I appreciate the turntable. I remember the Buick dealership on Piedmont in Atlanta. It had a turntable out on the corner. The last time I saw the place a new '82 Riviera convertible was roatating in the sun. Don't know if the turtable or dealership is still there, but your signage & dealership posts belong in some kind of archive. Thanks - Ranchero

That is absolutely great stuff and thanks for posting those photos. I've never bought or even priced one, but I imagine those signs by now have appreciated by a much greater percentage than the Buick cars that were current when the signs were erected at Buick dealerships.

I own a straight stock 1982 Riviera convertible. Is mine a modified car? GM built it for Buick (with a hardtop) in New Jersey and then shipped it to ASC in Lansing. ASC chopped off the roof, built a unique back seat, windshield header and convertible top (adapted later for '84 & '85 Eldorados) and then shiped the cars to Buick dealers. Buick sold them for 1982 to 1985 model years. Is my car a legitimate Buick or is it a modified car? What about the H/E (modified at Cincinnati) brand new Toronado or Ciera convertibles that were, unlike the Rivieras and Eldorados found in then current Buick and Cadillac catalogs, not advertised or supported by Oldsmobile? Get over it and complain about gas prices or something like that. I like customized Buicks.

Norb - So what? Are you against capitalism? Are you offended by other corporations making "record profits"? What if Pfizer made record profits? What if Wal Mart or General Electric did so? What if somehow General Motors could make record profits, much less any profit ever again? Why are oil profits so offensive? They produce a product that is in demand, that has a limited and damaged supply system. They should earn profit always and record profit when their business is threatened by natural disaster, government regulation or populist and wacky sentiment. Oil extractors, refiners, distributors and retailers deserve profit - just like any other business. Finally my gasoline costs about as much per gallon as my milk. Think about the production and distribution process of the two. Gasoline involves much more investment to produce than that gallon of milk. Gasoline is a bargain. If you think oil companies are making record profits perhaps it is time for you to buy stock in Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Conoco-Phillips, Valero, British Petroleum, etc. They are well run companies which produce, with great risk and investment, nice returns in dividends and capital gains for their owners. I own V-8s. I hate paying so much for fuel. But I understand it and am willing to accept it until: we get around to drilling in Alaska, the Gulf, the Rockies, off California and Florida; building new refineries (how about on closed military bases?); eliminating all the multiple fuel grade geographic requirements for enviro purposes; ending tax breaks for corn based fuel; eliminating state and federal fuel taxation. Riding my bicycle more and driving my V-8s less - Ranchero

Dave@Moon: "Ranchero really meant it?" Of course I mean it. If you do not like the price of fuel then the smart thing to do is to drive a Prius, I guess. Or maybe ride a motorcycle in the summer (as I do)? Or how about one of those cute Vespas they sell in downtown Denver? Or, if you live in a big city you could ride the bus or tram or whatever serves your neighborhood. A consumer does not need to use V-8 Buicks. I like them & I certainly don't care what the price of fuel is when I go to the pump. Dave@Moon, I think you are silly to be such an enviro and consumer geek when the cost of the fuel has not increased as much as inflation and when the enviro concerns have all been addressed and diminished over the years. Though they look similar in profile, I would much prefer to drive my full sized Roadmaster Estate Wagon than your 5/8 scale Prius. I've got safety, good fuel mileage, fine performance, cheap insurance, great comfort and a bargain priced car. You spent $29K for outstanding fuel mileage, unproven (Toyota has a recall on the Prius) technology, no performance, no safety, unknown after warranty availability of complicated electronic parts, unknown after warranty repair cost and an even uglier car than my Roadmaster. I got a car and you got a weenie-mobile. I am willing to pay for fuel for a man's V-8; you are not. How does that Prius go up hills in Cincinnati? Very truly yours - Ranchero

Roberta - Thank you. I went to the GM website for the info & then searched the local dealer inventory for the XLR. All but one of the local XLRs were black; there was one blue one. I like red. The employee discount price was $68K+. That is getting close; the Mercedes SL500 starts at about $87+K. I'd buy the Cadillac in red for about $60K/$62K. That was the first time I visited the GM web site; it worked well. I have GM card points to use (and have had for years but no GM car has interested me). There is no Buick I want and the XLR is the only GM car that intrigues me at all. My newest GM car, and the last model GM car that I liked, is a Roadmaster Estate Wagon. Thanks again, Roberta - Ranchero -

I read the stories about the sale and saw a big ad in today's WSJ. I wonder what would be the delivered cost, after employee discount and any other current rebates, of an in stock Cadillac XLR? It is a Northstar V-8 & may even have a "gas guzzler" tax for all I know so it is anything but politically correct but boy, it is pretty. Since the car came I out I've thought it was priced too near to the Mercedes SL500 - a clearly superior car. But maybe, with GM's current inventory problems, that XLR can be had more reasonably. One wonders if the warranty term (four years) might be longer than the life expectancy of a potentially bankrupt GM. - Ranchero -

HurstGN - The oil giants have no obligation to explain or justify to you their pricing structure. If you don't like the way they price fuels, don't use what they sell. The major oils exercise integrity in the quarterly and annual reporting to their shareholders/owners. They have a great record with investors - through good management they increase the per share value of the investment and they also increase the quarterly per share dividend paid to owners. They have no obligation to please you - none. Again, if you so dislike them, then simply use less or none of their product. Spend it on beer or bottled water or milk or Coca Cola. Of course those may even cost even more per gallon. Over the weekend the local unleaded regular price dropped to $2.02, with $1.99 reported at one station. Respectfully submitted - Ranchero

It is capitalism; it is supply and demand. Right now we have a huge supply of refined fuels available; the retail price has diminished a bit. And don't suggest the oil majors are other than "honest" with you. Those companies are owned by investor/shareholders; they report quarterly results as required. The obligation of the oil company is not to provide you with what you consider reasonably priced fuel or to provide you with what you feel is "honest" information. The obligation of the oil company is to make a profit in order to provide a return to the owner/investors. The fuel provided by the majors is a bargain. What price did you pay for fuel thirty years ago? Maybe 50 cents a gallon? My local price is down now to $2.04. The price of a gallon of fuel has roughly quadrupled in thirty years. Again, it is a bargain. How many times have the prices of a new home, medical care, a new Buick, a movie ticket or your local property taxes multiplied in those thirty years? I will submit the multiple is many more than four times. I suggest you buy shares of Exxon/Mobil or Chevron or Conoco/Phillips. Being an owner gives a better perspective; you might not feel so bad at fuel stops when you are an owner of a major petroleum producer. With respect from an investor/capitalist - Ranchero

For that scientist Dave@Moon who uses the word "collusion" to describe pricing of gasoline near his home - try, just one time, to understand that basic principle of economics called supply and demand. There is no "collusion". The Dummycrats tried that issue the last time the price of gasoline rose for awhile. There never has been "collusion"; there never will be. The price of gasoline is dependent on the free market - plus any local taxation our various governments decide we deserve. There has been more demand than supply - that simple. However, the price of Saudi crude has dropped over $5 per barrel in the last week; relief is really on the way! That accounting for lowered demand will show up at your pumps in Cincinnati pretty soon - unless I can figure out a way to collude with my fellow investors to keep your local price up before the Exxon Valdez reaches port. In Wyoming, where we produce a lot of energy, our price for unleaded runs between $2.119 to $2.219 and has dropped a bit during the first part of this week. Waiting for "earth day" to stalk a Prius - Ranchero -

Dear Dave at Moon: You state that "the point of this thread was that we are risking our own national security by driving thirsty pigs for no reason". You are very out of touch here. I, and many others who visit old car web sites, drive thirsty pigs because we like them. They are enjoyable. They are history. They are fun. I filled up an old V-8 Buick today; it cost a lot of money. Still, I don't regret it. I enjoy driving the old car; I love old cars with history and character (though they suck up fuel). Do you like old cars - our just Prius and the like? I find it amusing that you will buy into a "risk to national security" argument if it can be justify your interest in pushing us to drive crappy econo cars. But if you have concerns about national security, why do you not also happily endorse development of our own domestic energy resources at ANWR and elsewhere? Your posts are more evidence of hypocrisy. On a forum for people who love old cars you endorse the Prius. You are concerned about national security but don't think the resources at ANWR (or elsewhere in the USA I would guess) are worth the pursuit. This is hypocrisy. - Ranchero -

Skyking - exactly right; you got it! Even a $3,000 '76 Electra 225 at 9mpg does the job well! Dave at Moon - did you use the word "demand"? That is a consumer generated economic concept. Do you understand demand? Nobody wants to drive a Prius; it is slow, handles poorly, looks stupid but makes a statement. I guess that your neighbors would be impressed with one in your driveway. I bet Skyking's driveway is a lot more interesting than yours.

Dave Moon: I am not heeding the "facts" and "science" you cite. You state ANWR can only produce "X". This may be indicated in some research you have done. I might question your credibility, the credibility of your resources and your willingness to find other citations. But especially I just don't accept your perspective. If you say "X" and I say "Y", what's the point? ANWR is just a small portion of what we can go get. We can get more petroleum off the coast of California, off the coast of Florida, off the coast of Louisiana, off the north coast of Alaska, from the Rockies (at $55/bbl it works), from Alberta, etc. What you continue to fail to understand is that demand for energy stimulates production. What oil might have been produced from ANWR years ago at $20/bbl is not what will be produced now at $55 or more. Again, this demonstrates the failure of "liberals" to understand and recognize that not everything is finite or static. Things change. Use dynamic scoring in Congressional budget debates. Use it also when assessing this country's potential to develop all energy - not just petroleum. Dave Moon, are you also scared of using nuclear power? Do you think we should not build any more nuke plants because one accident happened several decades ago? Do you think we should not build more refineries because accidents frequently have happened at BP's Texas City? Should we not burn coal to provide electricity for California and Ohio because some "acid rain" fell on Europe or Maine? Do you hate the concept of production of energy to satisfy greedy consumners? It is a bigger world than you recognize. Read the Wall Street Journal. Read Forbes. Read the Financial Times. Read Investors Business Daily. The answer to energy needs is not published in science journals. Rather the answers to energy needs can be found in the study and understanding of economics. I don't care if the price of gasoline is $1.29 or $2.09 or $3.49 a gallon. I am going to use it and if it ever becomes not economic to do so, I will find a different way to provide for my transportation energy needs. In the big scheme, your discounting of the reserves at ANWR is trivial and meaningless. - Ranchero -

Dave Moon - No personal comments whatsoever, but did you sell your car? Do you ride the bus? If you really believe all this stuff that you present, do you like cars? Why tell those of us who do like cars how hopeless energy consumption is? And rather than harp at the rest of us who enjoy cars, why not simply accept that we who do love cars are going to continue to use them - regardless. If we lived in Europe or Japan or Hong Kong, we might ride public transit and find a better hobby - one more suitable to our residence. In the USA we have fun roads, wonderful cars, long distances, cheap (still) fuel and probably most importantly an optimistic view to the future. I am perfectly confident that there is plenty of oil, right here in North America, for all of us to pour gasoline into our V-8 Buicks (or V-12 Mercedes) as long as we are able to drive them. You see disaster; I see creativity. You see negatives; I see positives. You conserve; I enjoy. You regret that last gallon you got from Saudi; I can't wait for that first drop I pump from ANWR. Again, please answer clearly. Did you sell your car? Do you use only public transport? Do you like cars? If no to any, then please don't preach to us who enjoy cars and consumption because you would be a hypocrite. I don't mean to be nasty, mean or Republican. I am just using a noun. The noun is hypocrite - not vulgar, not nasty but just a common noun. Thank you for your civil contribution to this forum. With respect for your opinion back there to the east in Cincinnati - Ranchero -

Dave Moon - I know that your postings were intended to steer the discussion to what you consider practical, energy saving ways we could conserve what you consider to be limited resources. My response, and probably that of others, was not intended to "shout you down". You are certainly welcome to try these schemes and to tell us about your discoveries. My responses have been intended to present an alternate point of view - mainly that conservation is silly and not necessary. Your perspective is certainly influenced by different input that I have been using. Of course, I am an investor and a capitalist and this certainly has me thinking that the right way to address our energy needs is to find and produce more - in this country. I also know that no company is making the proverbial "buggy whips" any longer - because capitalism provides us with alternative sources of power and the mechanical means to convert to our uses when market economic forces make it useful to do so. I believe in the power of the market. I know there were no cataclysmic uphevals when horses were eclipsed by steam railroads; when steam was eclipsed by diesel; when piston engine propliners were eclipsed by turbine jetliners; when fuel injectors replaced carbs; etc. Our capitalist culture has the ability to develop other sources of fuel and other methods of power if and when market forces make it economical to do so. Until then, don't worry. And I again suggest that conservation is a simple, self-gratifying badge of honor among those who do not trust the market to resolve what they see as a crisis. I trust the market - but not government, nor politicians nor conservationists. In the interim I am buying Exxon and shorting General Motors. With respect for your view and your telling it to us - Ranchero -