1973 Buick LeSabre

[IvanOgburn]

I am starting to look at a 1973 Buick LeSabre with a 350 engine.

I am new to Buicks and LeSabres and would really appreciate any tips the informed public could offer in the way of special "Buick" or "LeSabre" issues/things to look for.

I have always admired Buicks and was hoping that this near mint condition baby (33K miles) would be my entry - the owner is asking $2500, which seems reasonable for it being in such good shape and low miles.

Any thoughts??

[Pete Phillips]

You can hardly go wrong with one of those cars. Engines and transmissions are nearly bulletproof in 1973, just be prepared for lousy gas mileage. If it is a 4-door sedan, look for worn weatherstripping around the driver's door, where the driver grabs the edge of the door, especially when the window is down. Also, the driver's door latch can be a little loose as the neoprene wears down on the door jamb peg, but with 33,000 miles, that is probably not a problem.

The plastic interior door panels can deteriorate if they have been well baked by the sun.

Pete Phillips

BCA #7338

[Guest sintid58]

$2500 for a car to get started if it is in good condition is very reasonable. Is it a 4 door or 2 door. If you could post a couple pictures of it that would be great. A car like that would be a lot of fun to take to poker runs, cruise nights and shows.

[Guest brh]

Could be wrong here but in 73 they had some rust issues on the body, good news is it will be real obvious. Other than that the engine and trans will run forever and the front end is built like a tank. Excellent entry car!! Comfy driver.

[Guest Dans 77 Limited]

I have to agre with BRH. The major issue was rust. The drivelines were practically bulletproof but rust problems were bad enough that anyone with an even passing interest in cars could tell if the car needed rust repair or had rust repair done. If this is a rust free car for $2500 I would recommend buying it... your not going to get a better deal in the old car market. And if you dont buy it.......Let us know where its at.

Dan

[NTX5467]

The "rust" issue might be relative to the part of the country the car spent it's life in. What happened in one area might not be what was generally seen in other areas, with all due respect or if the original owner had the car undercoated when it was new.

A somewhat common rust area on most full-size GM cars of that general body style (i.e., sloping rear window and similar contours in the area behind the rear glass) is the area just under the rear window near the chrome trim around the glass. In that body design, there is a hidden trough (hidden by the chrome trim around the window itself) which is prone to collect water as it runs down the window, kind of like how a terrace or levee controls run-off water flow in a field. Initially, things are fine, but after many years, the paint in that area tends to deteriorate with the continued water retention, usually in the lower corner areas and rust starts to happen in that area. IF any dirt or other debris (tree leaves, etc.) also gets under the mouldings, the whole situation can be worsened as moisture is retained longer rather than evaporating normally.

As the cars aged, this was a somewhat common issue and one that 3M (I believe) came up with their "alumalead" repair material. It might sound worse that it really is, but it's something that you'd have to pop the mouldings off to find out about, intially. GM was not the only manufacturer with rear window area designs of that nature, but they seemed to be the only manufacturer whose vehicles typically had problems in that area.

In the lower body area, there can also be some pinchweld areas (i.e., where outer body panels are spot welded to inner body panels) in the lower body area (as in the rear wheel opening area) which might allow dirt and other road debris items to collect in nooks and crannies, hold moisture there (even road deicing materials!), and rust can happen with th continued exposure.

In drier climate areas, dirt or sand can filter in past the door windows and settle out in the lower areas of the doors. Same scenario where the dirt/sand gets wet and maintains moisture long enough for rust to form on the inner surfaces where the door skin and door structure meet. In this case, perforations will be from the inside to the outside (as rust "bubbles").

Personally, when I started thinking about looking for a Buick, that body series was on my short list as when I was looking, there were some good vehicles still around. I also feel that GM's B-body platform in those model years where what I'd call "honest cars", meaning they were good, solid designs with styling appropriate for vehicles of the various brands of vehicles. Plenty of room inside and in the trunk, too. Size and comfort that money can't buy in a new car, for sure.

When the compression ratios went down in 1971 and then other emission controls were added later, fuel economy did take a hit (compared to prior model years), but I believe that some of it can be improved with a little careful tuning. That car with the Buick 350 V-8 would be a good running car, but not the fastest thing around yet perfectly adequate for normal driving. On the highway, geared as they were, I suspect that high teens would be possible at approx 65mph cruise conditions. Of course, town driving in any car of that weight will mean less average fuel economy (depending upon traffic flow patterns and driving style), yet I'd suspect mpg in the lower-to-mid teens would be pretty close to what you might expect. Plus, with the lower power pulling around 4500 lbs, that can make things a little worse in town driving, too.

On the plus side, it should run on any fuel you could put in it and not complain. On the downside, filling that larger fuel tank can be stressful, financially, especially if you let it get to that last 1/4 tank before refilling it. But, it would have one looonnnngggg cruising range on the highway (just like in the old days). Just make sure it's tuned to factory specs.

Being the car is of that age, it probably has its original rubber hoses in the fuel system. That might cause some compatibility issues with our modern reformulated fuels, but there shouldn't be that many feet of them to check out and change (as needed) with new hoses. Also check the rubber hoses in the cooling system for getting soft or either rock hard--things which would happen to any car with age and low miles. Replacing the radiator hoses with the molded style hoses is the best way to go.

As Pete noted, the door panels and other interior hard plastic items can deteriorate with age. Generally, the black interiors held up better in that respect, but they are not immune to such deterioration, with white being the first to go. In some years, the soft trim on the steering wheel can have age issues, too.

Although the miles might be low and the price "in the ballpark", don't neglect to check the body for collision repairs or similar. You can get a colored translucent plastic clipboard to help with this. Take the bare clipboard, hold it vertically at your side, and walk down the side of the car. The sunlight will deflect through the bare plastic and look like it's shining a light line onto the body. What you're really seeing is the reflection, but with the straight line you're watching, even minor waves or humps or whatever in the paint surface will become highly evident. It sounds "like magic", but it works and is so simple to do casually, it's something a prospective seller might not expect. The first time I saw that being done, I was astonished at how revealing it can be, even on a highly-finished show car. You can find those colored translucent plastic clipboards at the office supply chain stores for a few dollars each.

On the surface, it sounds like a pretty decent car to find and purchase. Use your best judgment, though.

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[Guest brh]

NTX, not looking to debate the rust issue, yes I live in the "rust belt" which is pretty hard on a car. When I say rust issue I mean a car that has developed rust on the surface (popped paint) both in the middle of nowhere and around moldings. A car that has rusted faster than it should even with proper care. It just seemed back then 72 and 73 were not good years for all G.M. cars. Not trying to start a debate just clarifing my view of "rust issue"

[Guest Dans 77 Limited]

Yea my fathers 73 Chevelle was a victim of the rustbelt also, but the point Im trying to make is so was my 71 Chevelle. Both cars were V8 4 doors with air.I know the 73 was a major redesign compared to the 71 so they are rather hard to compare. My Dads 73 Chevelle hung on (barely) until 1980. By that time it had sheetmetal and bondo wheelwells, needed 3 out of 4 doors, had street sign floorboards and a "warm" inspection sticker (hey my mother was sick and all of his cash was going to take care of her.... I dont want to hear any poopoo about the stickers ... he did what he had to). On the other hand in 1980 "my" 71 Chevelle was my brothers 71 chevelle. The factory paint job sucked so in many places it was primered over. But with the exception of one small patch on the left quarter and a patched trunk ... it didnt have any rust at all. Perfect doors, perfect fenders, solid floors.... and this was all after I wrecked it in 1984 some 4 years after the 73 Chevelle just couldnt be patched any more. In fact my brother gave my dad the 71 to drive for 2 years before I got it. So there were certainly some quality issues when it came to the sheetmetal in the 73s.

I mean using Chevelles as an example . When you go to a cruise or show how many pre 7 Chevelles do you see there as as opposed to post 71 Chevelles ? not too many I bet.

Dan

[NTX5467]

Dan, it's interesting how some model years of vehicles suddenlly seem to "have problems" when the prior model years did not. Your's is an interesting explanation for the observed lack of post '71 Chevelles compared to pre-'71 Chevelles at car show events. Others might claim it was due to emissions controls (and lesser power with poorer fuel economy), which might be in the mix too, but the ultimate determiner could be the availability of good, used cars in decent condition.

brh, no need to debate the "rust" issue. I know that what we call "rust" in Texas in not necessarily what those in other parts of the country call "rust" or "repairable rust".

In 1979, a good friend was getting married on Avery Island in Louisiana. I flew into Lafayette and got a rent car from Hertz. It was a baby blue Impala 2-door. Although it was only a year old, the paint looked as if it was much older and was not terribly glossy. Everywhere there was a rock chip, it was a spot of rust. It'd already had new windshield put in it too, with a windshield with an internal antenna in it yet the car had an electric antenna. But it was comfortable transportation and that's what I was after.

My friend took us on a tour of the Island, including showing us the entrance to the salt mine there. Across the parking lot from the workers' entrance was a small house. BESIDE the house was a circa '74 Impala 4-door sedan. It had had the aftermarket "rivet-on" body side mouldings and a vinyl roof added-on after it was built. In putting the mouldings and such on, a hole was drilled in the body and a rivet used to secure the molding and such to the body. Everywhere a hole had been drilled, there was a bright red (rust-colored) streak from that hole all the way to the bottom of the body--something I'd never seen before up here in N Central TX, period. Obviously, the salt-laden air from the Gulf of Mexico and humidity levels contributed to that situation. I'm not sure why the Chevy was on blocks, but it was there. Although many have not desired the stick-on body side mouldings (due to the reputation of them falling off, at that time), but seeing that rusty Chevy there was graphic proof of why the stick-on mouldings were genuinely better. It also was graphic proof of how "rust" can vary from one area of the world to another in where it happens and why.

Interestingly, across the parking lot was a '65 Plymouth Fury II 4-door sedan with decent paint and no rust in evidence (or evidence of repair of such) on the body--a good 20-footer. Plus a few Fords that had better looking paint than that on my rent car. I figured part of the paint issues might be due to GM's use (at that time) of acrylic lacquer than acrylic enamel as Ford and Chrysler had used for at least 15 year prior. Be that as it may.

Just some thoughts,

NTX54657

[Guest brh]

As you pointed out earlier a lot has to do with the care too. While washing a car I have always made it a practice to hit the underneath lip of the fender wells. Lots of crud settles there. Making sure weep holes in the doors are open helps too, you'd be surprised at how many leaves settle inside the door panel, cover the holes and hold moisture to start the rot process.