tyesac

My sons' daily driver is a 2005 Park Ave, it has the portholes (three/side), The car has been in the family since new, and those are not after market add on parts since the fenders have holes stamped in them to fit the trim parts. The Lucerne came after the Park Avenue/Le Sabre was dropped.

Pretty sure it wasn't "somebody pass the marshmellows & the s'mores" Tom Casey

I was an original owner of a 72 skylark with the 350-2bbl. What Jon said about that carb is right on, they're like a 70's version of the Eveready Bunny. Don't flog the car and it just keeps going and going.... When mine reached 75K miles I also overhauled the carb. I remember the float setting was a fussy procedure, but not too bad. BTW, is the float still good? At the same time I did mine, I also replaced all the vacuum lines. That carb is dependent on vacuum pull-offs for smooth operation, so, if the lines are bad, or the pull-off itself is bad, then the engine will not run right at all. The anti-deiseling solenoid is also a critical adjustment too as I recall. Also, I remember some strange performance when the PVC tubing went bad (soft). Under some conditions, if will flatten out, and choke off the PVC flow. Usually it won't hold low idle in drive when that happens. I'd suggest more detective work before you spend yer bucks on a new carb set-up. Tom Casey

More Illinois rust stories. Before I had my driver's license in the early/mid '60's, I was riding my bike down 99th st in Evergreen Park (Chicago SW 'burb) and I remember watching a mid 50's Ford skid to a stop and bump some other car. HUGE outline of rusted metal appeared beneath the Ford, even though there didn't seem to be much external damage. Later in the mid 80's I noticed my 1980 Skylark Ltd coupe had what appeared to be too much surface rust around the driver's side door hinge and windshield pillar, plus some minor rust in other places. Took it to a body shop to have the car fixed and painted (mine ran real nice & kept it for 13 years from new) The body shop guy spent a load of time referencing estimation books and replacement parts lists, filled out three sheets for the estimate. When he finnished, he tore of the estimate from his pad with a flourish, handed it to me in one sweeping motion and smirked as he said........ RUST IS EXPENSIVE!

A few things stand out to me: I'm amazed at how flippantly some of these bobble-heads (reporters & politicians) talk about backrupcy for the automakers in the same terms as it happens to work for airlines. They're ignoring the stark differences in relationships to thier customers each has. One for a few hours at most, the other for many years. And then there's the effect on current & future bond holders that would see thier money wiped out by goverment decree. Second, I'm amazed at the proportion of aid requested by automakers compared to that tossed freely at AIG, with an inversely related amount of care and concern. What's AIG gotten so far $180 billion, GM & Chrysler around $20-30 billion? Not only has AIG seemlingly had few strings attached to the money, we've learned the esteemed Sen Dodd & Mr Giethner had connections to the bonus payouts. Seems completely unbalanced in comparision to the amount of tax revenue generated by the US auto industry when it's in it normal state of health compared to now. Third, I'd like to know how many of these goverment experts have owned a GM or Chrysler branded car in the last five or ten years? Based upon the tired, 30 year old comments they're making, I'd guess few have any clue about the clear parity in quality that has been showing up in JD Power surveys over the last several years. Tom Casey (recently traded in a (original owner) '91 LeSabre for a '02 leSabre, and still has a '99 Park Ave going strong)

Just wondering.... What's the hold up in offering a hybrid drive train into anyone of Buick's current three models?

OK, this isn't about one of those beautiful real old cars like many of you own or have restored. I've had my 2002 Lesabre Ltd about a year now and it's a great car, loaded with most all the goodies. One thing that become very noticeable though, is that the myriad of interior dash lights are burning out and I'd like to repair them. Previously the dealer would solve the problem by replacing the particular that went dark. Problem is now though that a lot of them seem to be going dark about the same time. when I got it, the two of the steering wheel radio,temp switches were redone, and one on the climate control panel. Now 1/3 of the tach is dark, one of the heated seat switches, many of the radio lights are out, the head light switches, and the remainder of the climate control switches are now dark. I don't feel that this cars is having electrical issues as it runs great. It's strictly the lights that are dead, as these options still function the way they ought to, It's just that I'd like to see what I'm pushing/reaching for at night! My question is it possible to dismantle various dash panels and replace bulbs only? I know that I could simply take it in to the dealer and have these redone, but, the number of these lights reaching the end of the line would become very expensive fast. I've already managed to replace the HVAC fan recently when it died in Nov, so, I'm willing to take a crack at it.

From 1948 lincoln: Wow! Thats not bad! anyone else have any experience with these? I had a 1991 LeSabre custom, bought it new, and just traded it in last year. They do deliver great gas mileage assuming that you keep it in tune, maintain the wheel alignment, tires etc, all the normal things you ought to do anyway. I had several long summer drives in mine, and 32 - 34 MPG on a tank on the highway is fairly common. That is at a steady 70 MPH. This is one car that really likes to eat up the miles! That, plus the nice ride and plenty of room made it a nice car to own for all of those 16 years. Locally, in suburban Chicago rush hour driving, 20mpg and up was normal, When it dropped below that, I knew it was time for a tune-up! Considering that mine had to suffer Winter time salt attacks, it held up very well. The 89's and 90's LeSabres were tops in initial quality on the JD power list if I recall, and the '91 is essentially unchanged from the prior years. I don't know if any other domestic cars has ever had a repeat on the top of that list ever since. Considering it's many nice attributes, I really can't understand why GM & Buick never made any noise about it in any advertising. The imports certainly would have!

I remember seeing various Buicks in our dealer's showroom that had dealer installed hood ornaments around these years. Typically these would be the simple tri-shield in the circle ornament on a simple chrome base. The situation seems to have continued. Yesterday, I saw a late model LeSabre (2000 - 2006 body style) that had a hood ornament. I had to be either a dealer installed add-on, or, a Buick fan that went about the process on thier own, something I've considered doing to my 2002 LeSabre Ltd. Seems to me that certian luxury brands recognize that a hood ornament can remain a stylish tradition.

The apparant size, style & shape of the base, tri shields & ring look exactly like the somewhat standard hood ornaments that were used about '85 and last used on the '91 LeSabres. This is also much like the one used on '88 - '91 Regal Ltd's and some Century's. The normal factory option was a chrome finish, but there were dealer add on "gold packages" that some people bought. Tom C

Hope you enjoy your "new" ride. About a month ago I bought a 2002 LeSabre Ltd. Mine has more miles at 86K, but at least it's loaded with options. You'd never know by riding in this car that it has so many miles, the ride is quite and solid. The oil life monitor just prompted me to change the oil, so, in goes what's probably it's first "taste" of Mobil 1. I'll never understand why some people think that the drain plug must be holding the entire car together! Talk about over torque!

Thanks for all of your input. As it turns out, I did buy a 2002 LeSabre Ltd, Maroon exterior, lt Grey leather interior. It's highly optioned out, so, it's been a big upgrade from my previous 1991 LeSabre custom. As for the windows, I'll deal with that if that happens. Since this car has auto climate control, I expect that the windows will spend most of their time closed. That being the case, I hope that I'll stay under the number of operating cycles that wear out the mechanism. It was never a deal breaker, but, I was surprised at how consistantly this appeared to be the one complaint. Seems odd that the engineering staff doesn't follow the "if it ain't broke, don't fix (improve) it" design philosophy. BTW the driver information center shows an average fuel MPG number of 22.8MPG. Not bad for one with the 3.05 drive ratio and GT suspension. I typically have the Driver Info set to display the instantaneous MPG rating, and I'm surprised at how quick I can see readings in the 30 - 40 MPG rate shortly after leaving a red light and getting to a typical 45 MPH speed at around 1500 RPM As for the "tape drive" window lift system, my 1980 Skylark Ltd coupe had them, and I became fairly adept at fixing them in short order. In fact, I still have about 3'- 4' of replacement tape stashed away here. That Skylark though, is gone, and like my recent '91 LeSabre, both proved to be great "ambassadors" for the brand, each done in more by rust after 13 - 15 years of daily driving than by any mechanical fault. That Skylark once ran a stretch of over 2&1/2 years of being driven every day with only routine maintanence. Compared to co-workers, they were having more repairs done on thier imports than I was, and that for one of the so-called troublesome X cars. Tom C

After 15 decent one years with my 1991 LeSabre, I'm in the market for a more recent version. I've been researching various used/one owner 2000 - 2002 LeSabres for sale in my area, and have a few candidates in mind. Here's the "rub" so to speak. I noticed on one of those owner review web sites that these LeSabres seem to have a common complaint (of the few that complain) relating to the power window mechanisms. Is this a legit concern, or am I seeing the rants of a few disgruntled owners, i.e. the "I'll never buy another American made/Buick/GM etc, etc..." types? Tom C

With Buick & Caddy doing comparatively very well in these rankings, I'm constantly amazed at why thier PR & ad agencies have never made mention of this. Mind blowing, really. How hard would it be to produce a print ad in some critical newspapers (Wall St Journal, NY Times, Chi trib, LA Times etc) with some wording like Buick (or Cadillac) ranked higher than Mercedes, Infinity, BMW, Toyota, Nissan, Accura etc.... If I'm not mistaking, hasn't this relative ranking been the state of affairs for several years now? I remember when we bought our 1999 Park Ave, Buick was tied for first with Jaguar. If the day ever comes that Hyundai or Kia ever got into the top five, they'd probably sponsor the whole Super Bowl half-time show!

They were called "lamp monitors" in the option list back then. I believe they were offered for the big Buicks only (Riv, Electra, LeSabre, Estate Wagon, Wildcat/Centurion) Unlike Chrysler products of the era, the GM version monitored the status of the front lamps. There were three lenses lit in each. There was an amber one for the parking lamps that flashed when the turn signals were on, a green indicator for normal headlighs and a blue lense for hi-beams. It was possible to have all lit simultaneously. Tom C

The local dealer has had a beige/gold one parked on their front lawn this week. I've been looking forward to seeing one "in the flesh" since seeing the Chicago Auto show intro (on-line only), and the Buick Div web site pics. I have to admit though, on my daily drive by, that this one looks, well, "frumpy & bloated". Maybe it's the color. I saw a new DTS on the street weeks ago, and it immediately looked very sharp. I hope that my first impression on the Lucerne is the wrong one! I have no doubt that the car underneath it all is first rate, but, I'm beginning to wonder if the designers at GM have lost touch as to what a Buick could look like. I say that in memory of how the new Buicks of the 60's, 70's & 80's managed to look better than their GM siblings at first glance.

For me, Buicks have been in the family in one version or another since my Grandfather's first one in '1927 (it lost out in a battle with a street car in 1929) The one's I knew were dad's; a '55 Special, '62 LeSabre, '68 LeSabre, '71 Electra Ltd, plus other assorted ones later. My own cars the cinced it for me were my first; a '72 Skylark coupe, followed by a '80 Skylark ltd coupe (mine, was very reliable, lasted 13 yrs of daily driving. My own favorite so far was the '89 Regal Ltd coupe I had. To sum it up, the qualites I like are a more comfortable than average interior, and a step up in external appearance, with some exclusivity, without the high price tag. Something they seem to lost touch with lately. But to thier credit, interior comfort, quietness is still top notch, and highly underated by the auto press. Also, I don't understand why people haven't caught on to how high thier quality ratings have soared in recent years. It's like some kind of big secret or something. They could certianly use the Velite!

Skyking is right, GM management seems clueless as to how to sell and make cars that people want to buy. The current ads for the LaCross are a case in point. The do a nice job of showing the cars, BUT, do any of these ads mention any of thier FEATURES? Such as horse power, luxury items? They seem to be able to advertise truck features, why drop the ball on the car ads? I don't understand why GM requires so long to bring a new product to market, not every new model has to be a "moon shot's" worth of change. What ever happened to using off-the-self components and reassembling them into new packages. Seemed to work OK at Ford with the first Mustang, didn't it? In other words, why does the Cadilac XLR have to be out there all alone, and Buicks Velite gets canned? Why could't they make a few Blackhawks using the Camaro/Firebird chassis/drive train? Same goes for the Pontiac Solstice that's been announced as (i think) a 2008 product. Why does it take the three years to go from concept to production? I doubt it's because they lack empty factory floor space to make them in! Centieme's concept looked a LOT like the Nissan/Infiniti SUV twins years ago, why wasn't that project green lighted? I never understood why each division felt like they had turf to protect from each other, all the while imports were stealing thier lunch. Case in point, how Buick's GSX & Grand Nationals were down played so as not to "steal sales from Chevy or Pontiac". Or, how high end luxury options are kept out of Buicks because they would/could compete with Caddy. Don't they see the real competition as Acura, Infinity, Lexus, BMW & Mercedes? So why then couldn't they put GPS nav screens in both Caddy and Buick SUV's? Buick would seem to be a better car division if they had a better selection of products, mainly a coupe and convertible, plus some high end dream car to draw in dreamers that could be sold on something more realistic. In other words, the way the Riviera sat on top of the Buick line much like the Corvette works for Chevy. If GM becomes Caddy and Chevy only, I can't see how they expect to cater to the middle market buyers. I for one, won't go to a Chevy dealer for a car, and I don't see how adding lower priced/content cars to Caddy improves thier situation either. Dumping Hummer in the face of rising gas prices, and jettisoning Saab makes more sense. Some how, co-jointing Buick & Pontiac would make some sense if they could figure out how to keep their best parts with out diluting the end result. Unfortunately, they'd probably save the worst cars, and name them "Ponti-iks" Tom C BTW, there's been at least one Buick, and often several, continuosly in the family since 1927

Well, at least it's a fresh face for a Buick CAR for a change! My three thoughts: 1)I hope they've figured out how to the the window in the rear doors to go all the way down, it's a trick that seems to be a lost art at GM. 2)There's something about that grill that says "Ford Taurus" to me, although there's lots of other Buick syling cues there otherwise. 3)one last word: COUPE! Other makers seem to mange to still make and sell 'em!

I owned a 89 Regal Ltd for about 11 yrs, and it had the 2.8. I always used Molbil 1 synthetic oil in it for two reasons, 1) for all the qualities synthetic oil add to the engine life and particularly, cold weather starts; 2)I always thought that wasn't enough engine for that size of car. For every day commuting, it's a nice choice, passengers always had nice comments about the quite ride in mine. Gas milage was decent, never under 20MPG in a suburban Chicago commute, and easily in the mid 30's on the highway. The car in your pictures shows a fairly uncommon "4 place" seating arrangement. I also appears that the owner added some orange reflectors or lights in the center of the rear lights, those aren't original. It is true that the block has to be swung forward to get at the rear plugs, but that's not a frequently needed maintanence item. Early in our ownership experience, the ECM had to be replaced due to an occational stalling problem. That happened 2 times, but after the fix, that car never needed anything other than normal maintianance. Basically it's was one of the better cars I've owned. If I had the choice though, the 91's and later Limiteds & GS's coupes with the 3.8 are one of the better marriages of car & engines that snuck out of GM.

I drove a 89 regal Ltd coupe with the 2.8 for about ten years. No doubt about it, it was a terrific car, but clearly underpowered. On the other hand, I'm sure it saved me from several possible tickets! I did like the gas mileage though, and since it was normally used to drive to work in rush hour traffic, gobs of acceleration was rarely needed anyway. My brother in law had a 90 Regal GS with the 3.8 and it was really quick. Seems to me that would be the better way to go, or, go for a 93 - 95 Regal coupe with the 3.8, ABS bags, CD and the bigger alloy wheels. Geez, I sure wish they'd resume making Regal coupes again!

Well, maybe it's $60G's for the Barnum & Bailey "circus ready" paint job! Mow there's an early 80's Riv in the background that looks a little interesting.

20 mpg from a 91 Park Ave is prettey normal for an overall average. My 91 LeSabre generally gets 20 - 22 for an overal tank average around town (suburban Chicago) Highway mileage though, has been a different story. Took a family trip (two kids & three adults)in July from Chicago to Fort Worth, generally keeping the speed around 70 mph, A/C on the whole time and averaged around 34 mpg round trip. The same car has been to KC & back a few summers ago, again 70+ mph, and again in the 33 - 34 mpg range. My parents have taken Park Avenues from RT Chicago to Phoenix several times nad reported mpg numbers in the 30 - 31 mpg range. I suspect that the several hundred pound difference in base car weight makes the difference. My 89 Regal with the little 2.8L would typically get 34 - 36 mpg on the hwy. What was really fun though, was car pooling to school during the 1974 gas shortage with a friend having a VW Bealte. She was a bit heavy on the gas and got 20 mpg, I drove the Skylark (350 V8 2bbl) verry carefully and was getting 17 mpg. The small 3 mpg difference measured against the significant difference in comfort used to drive her nuts!

What is it? OBVIOUSLY, it's a rolling collection of parts to restore the front half of a 66 LeSabre! Or, in other words, a "parts car/flat bed wannabe" LOL! Makes me wonder if anybody's ever tried to take a '68 - '72 Skylark and merge it into a Skylark/El Camino?

How old is the thermostat? Maybe it's acting up.