ranchero

To the enemies of the extractive industries in the west: I admit that I have very great bias in favor of these resource developers. The value of the Exxon-Mobil stock I own has multiplied many times over during my holding period. I bought more as the enviros "screamed wolf" when some oil fell from an Exxon boat into Alaskan waters; the value of Exxon-Mobil stock is up a lot since that event. These extractive industries have paid for a lot of government in the west and provide important, high paying jobs in our economy. So as a citizen of the west, I want more development of our resources. If and when it becomes cheaper and easier to use a different type of power for our vehicles; I am for it. Diesel replaced coal fired steam because of economics - not because of conservation or enviromental issues. If the competitive market can provide a quick, reliable, easy to fuel and competitive solar/hydrogen/whatever car then I will be open to one. Until that time, I am using petro powered cars without concern about conservation of the fuels. Respectfully - Ranchero -

Dear Dave: Thank you for for your quite eastern analysis. I did not know that I was "GOP"; thanks for categorizing me. Now I know. I never knew that; I did know that my difference with you is that I am a westerner. What you enviro types (and dare I say many Democrats?) always fail to take into account is economics. I am convinced you do not understand supply and demand. In production of energy resources, you do not understand that a resource which at one time was impossible to take out of the earth cheaply may now be quite profitable due to changes in the demand for the resource. We had oil shale development and uranimum development in the Rockies in the 1970s. Those became fruitless to pursue when the world price for energy fell as demand declined. The same applies to the tar sands in northern Alberta. But now oil shale in Colorado, uranium in Utah, tar sands in Alberta and coal bed methane in Wyoming have become attractive for developers to go get. You know nothing about the economics of energy; you simply know that once in the past it was too expensive to develop the resources that are there for the taking. And you were correct; at one time those resources were not economically viable. But they are now! Wyoming has no state income tax and a $1 billion revenue surplus. We do not have to increase taxes like you do in Ohio. The reason is that we have mineral resources that have become profitable to extract in the last several years and we pay for our state by severance taxes on energy sold to you in the east. In fact sir, a privately owned railroad is building a new line into northeast Wyoming just to be able to serve the extractive industry in that corner of the state. The reason to risk private capital on such a speculative venture is that the world market for energy justifies paying for the minerals and for the transportation to use it in power plants in the east. Unlike static budget scoring by "Democrat" participants in our federal government, we in the west and members of the "GOP" understand that dynamic scoring (taking into account changes in economic paramaters) matters. The demand for energy in the world makes our mineral resources more desirable than ever. Or, you could simply complain about arabian oil and save a whale or two. Respectfully submitted - Ranchero -

Dear Dave: "Osama" and "Marine's mothers" are not very sensitive responses to a post about the economics and production of energy. You may understand some science. I understand economics and world trade. In commenting about my interest in developing DOMESTIC energy resources, you use hot words which relate to national defense and foreign affairs issues. My post indicated that we should use our own DOMESTIC resources. We can be energy self-sufficent but we need to explore, build, drill, produce, ship and refine. We can also take advantage of the almost domestic supply in northern Alberta; the pacifist Canadians are happy to sell us beef, wood and even energy. It is possible that there are no sources of energy near Cincinnati and you think that it is all imported from very distant foreign countries. There is plenty around us in Wyoming. Here we go get it. You may wish to sell your Buick and ride a city bus. In Wyoming we don't do it that way; we drive our needed vehicles hundreds of miles daily to ranches, wells, towns, schools and jobs. We need vehicles and we rely on personal transportation to make our livings. We also go find and develop the energy and we use what we need when we want. Respectfully yours - Ranchero - ps - I am going to drive my 455 four barrel boattail on "earth day" next month.

Dave - Good morning from Cheyenne; our local refinery (Frontier) is up and working well. I am going to do nothing to conserve fuel, oil or energy; I am going to use as much fuel as I want and not complain about the price. I believe that domestic demand is relatively inelastic and that our attempts at conservation are not an appropriate response - especially when the world supply is pressured by rapidly rising demand in the growing Chinese economy. Oh, I may ride my motorcycle on local errands when it gets a bit warmer here; that'll save a few gallons now and again. However I believe that with inelastic demand that the only way to make fuel prices more palatable is to increase supply. Therefore, I will continue to vote for politicians who recognize and want to exploit the unused resource potential at ANWR as well as off the coasts of California, Florida, Louisiana and the untapped potential of all energy resources in the Rocky Mountain west. I also support construction of new refineries, offshore LNG terminals and nuclear power plants - now. - Ranchero -

Reatta - I remember when new product was exciting. I remember when our local Olds/Cadillac dealer had paper on the plate glass windows a day or two prior to the introduction of the then new '62s - I guess the Starfires were the special product that had to be hidden from my view. And I certainly remember the introduction of the Mustang - with the then inspirational Lee Iacocca celebrated in Business Week as the next messiah. I think we agree. Certainly current Buick product is boring, irrelevant and attracts nobody (especially car buyers as opposed to van/truck/SUV buyers). But Buick could do better - like the Pontiac Solstice or a cool RWD coupe to fill the Riviera niche. But they won't because they don't have the money. And they don't have the money because of the excess inventory and they have the inventory because of the labor. They could easily do what we both want but they can't with the UAW monkey on their backs. We agree - new exciting product is the heart of the issue. Yet to get there they need flexibility at the plants and many fewer union employees and union legacy costs! Even with the coolest, best product in the market (say a '64 Mustang or a '86 Taurus or a '92 Explorer or a '04 300C) Buick could not win given GM's union burden.

The issue of inventory is key! Management at efficient companies understands "just in time" inventory and the benefit that such practice has on the financial well being of a company (see Toyota and Wal Mart - legends at this fine management practice). Many of GM's competitors in production of vehicles in North America effect much better inventory control. Of course these competitors are mainly in the south, are all foreign owned and are all without the burden of the UAW. However GM (plus Ford & Chrysler) can not control their inventory properly because of obligations under long term UAW contracts. This led to devaluation of lease residuals by dumping of new cars into rental fleets - it served the bottom line better to sell excess inventory to rental fleets at no profit than it did to reduce production of slow selling models while still suffering labor costs. The Asian and German producers in the south do not have this problem - they can simply roll back production and take advantage of lower labor costs. These high inventories are horrible for dealerships too. Floor plans do cost money and the price of money (prime rate) is rising. This all goes back to labor and the burden of the union. GM is capable of marketing exciting, interesting cars but every product decision is constrained by the burden of the union. For the long term, the only chance of survival is bankruptcy and elimination of the union. Toyota will never relent, will never let a gulping GM up for a breath of air. Very radical management action is needed yesterday in order to save this corporation.

The above "Tommy" post is terribly entertaining. Are all the others so captivating? The creativity of spelling is quite enjoyable. Can posts like these be archived and printed in the "Bugle"? A post like the first in this string is so much funnier than the "Otto Mechanic" cartoon appearing in my weekly issue of "Old Cars" magazine; perhaps "Bugle" could add a humor section. I think the "VW split" must be one of the early 1950s Volkswagen Split Window sedans - cute but not seen much anymore.

GM (& even Buick) could easily build cars as great as the Chrysler 300 and the stunning Mustang. The new Corvette seems to be exceptional and the upcoming Pontiac Solstice seems a likely success. The problem is not product planning. The problem is the UAW. GM has ridiculous obligations to union members. They have to keep them paid (and insured) for years and during times when the product being made is obsolete. They have to give incredibly generous health care benefits to union members (plus family and retirees) with no deductible and no premium. The overwhelming overhead of an old, inefficent and overly entitled union workforce is GM's main problem. Please see the front page story in today's Wall Street Journal. Remarkably the Chrysler division of Daimler-Chrysler was able to negotiate with the UAW a reduction in medical benefits for UAW employees and retirees. The Journal suggests that GM (& Ford) may try to open their contract with UAW to get similar changes. Chrysler had previously negotiated contract protection to allow what they were able to do; GM may not have such an easy time. The UAW union is likely to do to GM what the machinists did to Eastern Air Lines. We may not need to worry about Buick getting a RWD car; we may need to worry about who will pay for the warranty work needed on our GM cars in a couple of years. Obviously, the stock should be shorted or avoided but unless you were comfortable with buying a '56 Packard, '65 Studebaker, a '78 Fiat, a Bricklin, a DeLorean, a Yugo or '90 Peugeot, buyer beware!

Larry, posting above, has his thumb exactly on the pulse of the issue. The problem with not only Buick but all of GM and Ford North American production is the burden of UAW union employees and incredibly inflexible and burdensome contracts. Not only does GM have to contend with union workers who are paid 90 to 95% of their normal wages when not working during periods fo slow demand, they also have terrible "legacy" issues with these union contracts. The legacy issues are the horrible health care and pension costs for retired, older workers (and family members). Toyota in North America (and Nissan, Hyundai, Honda, etc.) do not have any of these issues. They were smart enough to build plants where the unions have little power and little sympathy. Therefore they have young and fit current workers, no need to pay union employees for not producing, no union employee retiree legacy (health/pension) costs. It is possible for Buick or other GM divisions or Ford to design and engineer in North America wonderful, competitive (no incentives needed) cars. It is also possible to build such cars in a North American plant with reasonable quality. It has been done recently (Mustang) and will likely happen again soon. But without bankruptcy, killing the UAW or possibly US federal health care (Hillarycare), in the long term GM and Ford will not be able to defeat the foreign companies. The new Toyota Avalon was designed in California, was engineered in Michigan and is manufactured in Kentucky. You can buy NYSE listed shares of that company through your local or internet broker. Though we know that the majority of ownership and upper level management is in Japan, Toyota is convincing (younger) generations of consumers that it is an American company. Get used to it. Finally, as a note, Magna-Steyer (Canadian/Austrian company that builds low production run cars for Chrysler and European manufacturers in Europe) is looking into the possibility of buying an existing auto factory in North America. There are plenty of vacant ones; the failed Mitsubishi factory in Illinois (burdened with that union) is rumored to be the prime target.

"Buick" is a respected and historic automobile brand in China. You can be sure that more Buicks are built in Shanghai than are built in Flint. Fortunately, a Buick (last generation Regal/Century) is one American product which, with the benefit of local production there, can be sold to China.

Take a look at the Doug Scott funeral car dealership site - www.funeralcars.com. There is a similar odd FWD stretch Buick for sale there - an '88 LeSabre six door sedan. It looks like a very nice car and it has an especially pleasing color combination. One would think that a uni-body FWD car would not lend itself to a strecth as well as a body on frame RWD car. Do you suppose these cars sag or creak?

Well, here is more fuel on the fire. In today's (11 January) Wall Street Journal (at page B1), there is a story focusing mainly on Bob Lutz, the Pontiac G6 and the Buick LaCrosse. And as we clearly recognize, neither the LaCrosse nor the G6 are exciting potential customers. At the end of December both the new LaCrosse and the new G6 had 71 day supplies on dealer lots. In contrast, the home run Chrysler 300C had a 28 day supply. The story reports Buick sales dropped 8.1% in 2004 to 309,639 vehicles. This followed a 22% decline in 2003. And the icing on the cake: "Buick is now selling fewer vehicles than Oldsmobile in 1999, the year before GM decided to kill the Olds brand." Do any Buick enthusiasts think the quite satisfactory but ordinary LaCrosse is the answer?

Well, yes, Aerosmith appeals to a younger generation - like mine. Steven Tyler is older than I am; that would be 54. So I guess the idea is to lower the average Buick owner age from four decades above that of the Mustang owner to just three decades above the Mustang owner. And why did Aerosmith first do Dodge truck ads then Buick sedan ads? Does that say anything about the credibility of Aerosmith? And can anyone imagine Steven Tyler driving a LaCrosse in real life (other than out of the Hertz lot if they were out of Jaguars)? I love my old Buicks but I know how out of touch Buick is when my wife laughs at the Aerosmith/LaCrosse ad when we see it on TV.

Agreed. This would be a nice car to own for $1,000 to $2,000. However, the asking price for these '71 through '75 LeSabre and Centurion convertibles is too often $8,000 to $13,000 or so. These cars are much less desirable than the Impala/Caprice or ElDorado convertibles from the same years. Look out for the operation of the "scissors" tops and for rust in the trunk and quarter panels. I had a '72 for many years and would like now to own a nice '74 or '75. Ranchero.

86 two door: PS from ranchero: The correct spelling of the following words is as I type them below; if you'd like to do so, please check them. Your spelling is incorrect. I just though you would want to know for your future postings. experience (not "experiance") vehicle (not "vehical") I don't care how you spell; I deal with cowboys everyday. However I just imagine that an easterner would want to be correct. Respectfully submitted, ranchero

86 two door: "MR." has RWD V-8 Buicks - 455 Boattail & Roadmaster Estate Wagon. My opinion about Reatta not being a real Buick is because the car does not have a V-8, does not have rear wheel drive, has insufficent horsepower and generally does not provide satisfying performance (yes, I have driven one). A good point was made that at the time of introduction of the Reatta (1988) the performance and horsepower of the drivetrain was considered satisfactory. Yet a similar "urban sized" car was available then - a Mustang. It could be had with a 302 V-8 and was a RWD car; the technology of such a set up was not so very exotic. Look, I don't hate your Reatta. I think they are cute, especially the stunning convertible. I think the design is attractive and the interior was especially well done and roomy. But I think the car, despite hand assembly at the "Craft Center" was not durable; that GM parts support is bad; that performance could and should have been much better. Please consider a quote from Ed Mertz, then GM of Buick Division. This appears in one of my owner's manuals: "Buick will provide Premium American Motorcars backed with services that exceed our customers' expectations, throughout the purchase, ownership, service and repurchase experience. Buicks are SUBSTANTIAL. Buicks are DISTINCTIVE. Buicks are POWERFUL. Buicks are MATURE." I identify Buick cars within those paramaters. Ask if the Reatta met those standards. Were the backing services of GM satisfactory to long term owners? Are Reattas substantial? Are they powerful? So I am at best indifferent to the obsolete but pretty Reatta and did not even like the car back when it was new. To me a Buick is a traditional, well built and durable car capable of delivering satisfying performance - longhorns or not.

Road wheels don't fit a FWD Riviera. They are only for RWD cars.

rawjanyc - I am the one who meant to slight the Reatta. I believe it is a deceptive car. It looks great. It has an inviting interior. It is a wonderful size for a car to drive around Chicago, LA, Denver or Dallas (or I guess even some city on the east coast). But the looks of the car are deceiving. That car is not a real Buick. It has no power. It has no durability. Replacement parts from GM are generally not available (try to find "windwing glass"). Building a Reatta was a huge mistake, despite how much I love the looks of a "Maui Blue" '90/'91 convertible. Like they did with the boattails of the '70s, Buick could have used more parts from a standard LeSabre in order to make the replacement parts be more available. They could have given the car a bit of guts - why no supercharged 3.8? They totally blew the Reatta; admit it. Yes, it is a beautiful car and I would love to have one displayed in my living room. But I don't want to drive one. Buick needs V-8, rwd coupes, convertibles and wagons. That's it. Forget trying to compete with four door sedans; everyone else makes a better/cheaper/more durable/more reliable ones. I respect Special/Century/Super/Roadmaster naming but how many people know what those historic monikers represent? To me, Buick means "performance" and "country club" - I guess you could say a "midwest Lexus". A Buick owner should get the ability to do both. Anyone who buys a current Buick has no performance and will be laughed at by the valet at the country club when he pulls up in a Park Avenue or "R" whatever. V-8, rwd, coupe, convertible, wagon!

OK - Buick, a brand I love and a history I respect. What's wrong: Coupe available now: none: need a Riviera Convertible available now: none - need a Skylark (not a Velite). Velite is close - rwd is good but not a V-6. Must look like a Buick (and perform like a Buick - not a Reatta) and must have a V-8 (any LT-1s left from Roadmasters?). Station Wagon available now: none - need Roadmaster Estate Wagon. Any manufacturer can provide excellent four door sedans. Toyota, Lexus, Acura, Ford, Mercury, Cadillac, BMW, Mercedes, Audi and Honda now do it well and look out for the new Chrysler 300. Buick must make some upper middle class cars - coupes, convertibles and wagons. In '50, '60, '70, ('82), and '90 you could buy a wonderful coupe, convertible or wagon from Buick. Today you can get none. Fifty years ago Buicks parked in front of country clubs belonged to the members. Today a Buick at a country club belongs to a member of the wait staff. Respectfully submitted - Ranchero

Dave - If the deciding factor in buying a new car is the price of parts to repair an older, out of warranty car - then I might rather have a Buick, or better yet a Ford F-150. But an F-150 is completely uninteresting and any current Buick is boring now and will never be a collectible old car. If we are talking a new, 2004 model year car I would still rather have a Mercedes. I'd rather have a '53 Skylark or wagon than any '53 Mercedes but there is no current or recent Buick I would rather have than a similar vintage Mercedes.

Thanks; I enjoyed those '62s a lot. Can anyone imagine the cost to replace a broken windshield on one of those high tops? I would like to see the '61s too; where are they posted? That '62 wagon posted on e-bay now is sure pretty - great color. More of these Buick pro-cars, if you've got them and thanks again.

Dave - I've got two Buicks and two Mercedes. If we are talking about a new, 2004 model year car the answer is clear. I would much rather have a Mercedes. I find any new 2004 Buick to be absolutely boring. Mercedes are incredibly satisfying to drive and are available in desirable body styles that Buick gave up years ago - two door hardtop coupes, two seat roadsters, four seat convertibles and rwd wagons. Until you've driven a Mercedes on a 1,000 plus mile trip, you don't know. They are safe, fast, comfortable and best of all confidence inspiring - every model from C class to S class. I get no confidence from the rent-a-Regal that I get from Avis. I know that is not the way it used to be and I also know that the reliability of Mercedes has been poor lately (complicated electronics that I dislike too). I love the history and style of Buick (as well as that of Mercedes), but between the two brands in the model year 2004 there is no Buick that I would rather have than any Mercedes. I hope that changes sometime soon as I've got lots of GM card points to use to go along with those $4,000 rebates that Buick has to have now. I like Buicks, but now is not the time!

Randy - I too have a '72 Riviera. Mine has the 1/2 top also. My research on the subject indicates that during the 1972 model year the vinyl top option was changed from full top to half top - though the option was priced the same either way. All 1971 Rivieras with vinyl should have full top; all 1973 vinyl cars should have the 1/2 top. If a car is an early '72 with vinyl top it will have a full top; if it is a late '72 with vinyl it will have, like mine & yours, a 1/2 top. My car is vintage red with a black 1/2 vinyl top. Suggest you contact Sloan Museum at Flint for research on your car: 810-237-3440; if you've got the VIN they'll get you the skinny on it.

I still love a two door hardtop. I've got a '72 Riviera - a true hardtop. And I bought a new 2004 model year two door hardtop - but it is a Mercedes CLK 320. Can't get a hardtop from American makers. I'd rather have a Buick hardtop but how long has it been since I could buy a new Buick hardtop with a warranty?

The worst Buicks are the current Buicks. Any Buick at the local GM-Pontiac-GMC-Buick store is the worst Buick. Those cars are the worst Buicks because they are not Buicks. They are GM uni-cars. There is nothing Buick about the cars that are sold using the "Buick" nameplate. There are no coupes. There are no convertibles. There are no wagons. They are nothing special, charming, exciting, powerful or elite. There are no cars that can't be bought across the street cheaper with a different nameplate. They are the worst Buicks ever because they are not Buicks but steal the Buick nameplate for bland nothing cars. I've owned five Buicks and currently have two Rivieras (every Riviera is a real Buick). The cars at GM dealers parading the tri-shield are Buicks in name only, are fake Buicks and are the worst Buicks.