POLO GREEN 91 REATTA CONVERIBLE PART FOUND

[Guest steveskyhawk]

In an effort to verify the correct part numbers for some NOS convertible parts I am selling I found a listing for a very interesting part.

If you do a google search for GM 039 3530044 you will find a listing on www.gmpartsgiant.com that is for a 1991 Reatta convertible (high stop light) assembly in GREEN. It is listed as "not available" as is all the Reatta parts in this list.

At the very least this is concrete evidence that GM had every intention of producing a Polo Green Convertible in 1991. This data asks the obvious rhetorical question; Why would GM have a replacement part for a car that it never produced?

[Guest my3buicks]

that same site has select the year of your Reatta 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 - so much for their accuracy. They could have very well also assumed that every color in the sales brochure that year was made in convertible and listed every color. a third party vender does not in my book make for good proof og anything, especially when you can get parts for a 93 Reatta from them.

[Guest steveskyhawk]

Keith and all,

I was a little skeptical of the accuracy of this website also, so I verified that PN at the Dealer in person. It is a good GM PN and is indicating the exact same part verbatum. I have a very hard time believing that GM listed parts for cars never produced.

[Guest my3buicks]

Maybe it was as simple as no one ended up ordering one of that color ? ? Foolish I know as I think a convertible would be stunning in that color.

[padgett]

Did it all the time though some were OTC and not production. RA V Pontiac engine is a good example. SD455 Grand Prix is another.

[jonlabree]

When I ran that part number thru "GMPartsdirect" it said there is no such part number.

[Guest Richard D]

QUOTE; ; Why would GM have a replacement part for a car that it never produced?

Why does GM rush a car to the sales floor then after three or four model years they get the cars systems right then cancel the model, Fiero, Reatta, Allante, Vega, Solstice, G8, Pontiac Sport Truck (still born) Should have made Pontiac the rear wheel drive division.

[padgett]

GM has always had more parts than cars - are in the pipeline before the vehicle they were for was cancelled. Have even ordered some of the stranger ones.

In the 60s each division had their own image, styling, and drivetrains. Pontiac was its own company and not a division within GM. By 1980 the corporate drivetrain was king. Chevrolet made V8s & V6s, Buick a V6 from the early 60s, Pontiac and Olds each had fours (Iron Duke dies, Quad-4 begat NorthStar & Aurora). As the 80s progressed it became more one of badge engineering.

After the Millenia, all "mid-brands" from all carmakers became targets. Olds went first because it had more different models than any other division, Pontiac was targetted second because it had the most models of those that remained. Saturn was an experiment that failed.

Were some interesting models but not original: Sky and Solstice were bigger/heavier Miatas that were doomed when the Lambda line of RWD cars was canned.

Since the air cooled V-8 Chevvys in 1918, GM always allowed a few "blue sky" models and we have benefited. I wax and wane but think I would like another Fiero GT with 5-speed. Get them while they are last.

[KDirk]

It is interesting to note, per the 1992 edition Buick "E" car line parts manual I have that many trim pieces were issued in pre-finished colors, each having it's own part number. For example, on the Reatta, all pieces of the side and bumper moldings are all listed by body color (and black) with each having it's own unique part number. Now, realistically, I doubt most of these pieces were available in pre-finished colors for very long, if at all, as most of the time such trim parts are sold unfinished and spec'd as "paint to match". Likely these were only available while the car was in production as there may have been a surplus of factory painted parts. Don't know how likely that even would have been the way the Reatta was assembled though.

Would be different for parts that were color-keyed plastic perhaps, and not painted, but no such exterior pieces were used on a Reatta to my knowledge. Actually, most interior plastics that were color matched were initially provided from production stock in each of the available colors. Later on, replacements were molded in black or grey (or whatever the natural color of the plastic used was) and had to be painted to match.

I've no doubt that there was every intention of building polo green 'verts, it would've made no sense to exclude that color as the tan top and interior were standard production parts already, and were the preferred complement color to polo green as seen on the coupes. Since the issue has not yet been settled to the satisfaction of most by way of independently verifiable, "in the flesh" proof, we can only speculate that either:

a) a few may have been built and simply are the hardest to find car on earth, or

production was planned but never commenced due to the unique build process/plant setup that resulted in cars often being built in blocks of the same body color, and that the heavy rollout of polo green production seems to have coincided with the somewhat abrupt decision to kill the Reatta due to it's mounting financial losses at the time.

I will not endeavour to settle the issue of whether or not any were built. Would love to believe there are a couple of holy grail green 'verts waiting to be discovered, but with each passing year it seems less likely one will be discovered with the die-off rate such as it is. Certainly, anyone who frequents this forum and is Reatta obsessed will have been on the lookout for one since the issue was first broached here some time back. Because it would immediately stand out to anyone knowledgeable about the Reatta and it's history, if someone here saw it I cannot believe it would not be reported. So, unless some eccentric collector has it under wraps never to see the light of day, it would have to be discovered at some point as it would be the find of the decade.

I am generally of the mindset that nothing is truly proven to be factual without my being able to verify it to my own satisfaction. With something like this, I would want either hi-res pictures that were irrefutably authentic (no photoshopped trickery) or better still to see it in person and verify the paint job was factory original; or at least that the color was not changed in a repaint. So, I will patiently await the proof I want while not completely discounting the possibility that there is at least one out there waiting to be found.

KDirk

[Barney Eaton]

It is a common practice in industry to issue parts numbers before the part is "officially" designed. Otherwise you have a design/drawing without identification (number)

In the case of painted parts, there is often a table within the drawing of the unpainted part, listing the part number(s) for the part painted.

Since the part would have been used both in 1990 and 1991, all the 1990 colors with part numbers would have been listed. When the Polo Green color was added to the Reatta choices (Oct 1990 bulletin) Polo Green would have been added to the drawing and loaded into the inventory system.

There is a strong chance that some Polo Green third brake light housings were ordered, look at the database and you will find 34 convertible vin numbers that were assigned but not built, starting with 1G4EC33L8MB900624.

One other thing to consider, this same part was used on Corvettes and the Corvette colors would have been listed on the same drawing/document. If Corvette had Polo Green those same years, then it is reasonable to find the part available and in stock at one point.

[NCReatta]

One other thing to consider, this same part was used on Corvettes and the Corvette colors would have been listed on the same drawing/document. If Corvette had Polo Green those same years, then it is reasonable to find the part available and in stock at one point.

It is not the same part on the Corvette. The root red lens is the same, but not the outer painted housing.

[Barney Eaton]

Sorry, I thought someone said the same part was used on the Corvette and some other vehicles. I also checked on the Corvette color....they had Polo Green from 1990 to 1996. 1990 & 1991 was code 91 (WA9529) '92-'96 was code 45 (WA9539) while they called it Polo Green it was not the same paint code as the Reatta.

[Guest steveskyhawk]

Here is the complete listing for the posters that cant find it or are confusing this part with a part for a Corvette. Clearly it is a part listed (with proper factory codes) for a GREEN 1991 BUICK REATTA CONVERTIBLE and nothing else. (one required)

[TABLE=class: part_list]

<TBODY>[TR=class: grayline]

[TD=class: td1]039[/TD]

[TD=class: td2]3530044[/TD]

[TD=class: td3]LAMP,HIGH MT STOP(DK YELLOW GREEN METALLIC) (NOT AVAILABLE)[/TD]

[TD=class: td4]E97(C05,48U)[/TD]

[TD=class: td5]91[/TD]

[TD=class: td6]01 [/TD]

[/TR]

</TBODY>[/TABLE]

[Ronnie]

Makes perfect sense to me. It is confirmed that an unavailable part was listed somewhere in a catalog for a car that was never made. It appears this old argument has been finally been settled for good. Now we can close the case on this and move on to something worthwhile.

[Guest steveskyhawk]

Ronnie and all,

This line of data was taken from a GENERAL MOTORS DATABASE. Discontinued simply means this part is no longer available exactly like the majority of Reatta specific parts. Any assumption that the car was never made is simply an opinion which everyone is entitled to as I am mine.

When new hard evidence comes to light it isn't logical to end the discussion. I have spoken to Reatta experts that have seen a Green 1991 Reatta Convertible. Actually the most credible expert says there were four of them. Anyone who doesn't think this topic is worthwhile is free to ignore it. I personally find this topic fascinating. I would hope that anyone with first hand knowlege regarding GM production practices to chime in as Padgett has. I would hope he will define the GM term "body in white" which if I remember right has nothing to do with color.

[ductune]

"Body in white" was a term used to describe the body as it came out of the elpo dip prior to being painted. The term may have been used differently from plant to plant but that was the definition we used at the Fisher body plants. Some defined body in white as prior to the elpo dip but in any case it was the steel body prior to any assembly operations in the "trim" shop.

Edited June 14, 2013 by ductune (see edit history)

[Ronnie]

To old racers "Body in white" referred to a car that was built with the intention of it being used for factory sponsored race cars. They were built with no radio, no carpet (rubber mat) cheap seats, and no power options . Some of the "Body in white" Mopars of came with a big 426 Hemi engine, 727 Torqueflite transmission, Dana 60 differential and the battery already mounted in the trunk.

[Barney Eaton]

[h=2]Benjamin Franklin > Quotes > Quotable Quote[/h] [h=1]“A Man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”[/h]

― Benjamin Franklin

[Guest Kingsley]

Whether this car ever existed or not is not a concern on mine in the least; however, I am concerned with maintaining a level of post integrity on this Forum. Several years ago, there was a consensus that statements, based on what "someone" was alleged to have said or pictures that "have been seen" was most inconsequential. It could be suggested that, in order to add validity to a contention, it would be proper to have that "one" speak up for himself or have that "photo" produced. Without that, what is intended to be a factor is nothing more than an opinion. Kingsley www.reattaspecialtyparts.com

Edited June 14, 2013 by Kingsley (see edit history)

[Guest steveskyhawk]

Barney said: "look at the database and you will find 34 convertible vin numbers that were assigned but not built, starting with 1G4EC33L8MB900624.

There may or may not be any attribute data listed with the vin numbers listed in whatever document Barney is referring to. The assumption that these cars were "not built" is an opinion. It is possible these were non standard cars for which attribute codes didnt exist. (See the car in my signature) The Craft Centre could have easily produced this car with the color combination shown with parts off the shelf. We must never forget that the Craft Centre was designed to accomodate the production of "one off" cars. This non conventional assembly line lent itself to produce cars out of vin sequence. The goal was to make anything possible.

[Barney Eaton]

Contrary to the belief of some, the database is not made up of random number, colors, options etc. I started the database in 1996 from cars present at the BCA national meet in St. Louis. It was not intended to be a complete listing (how would we ever see and verify 21,751 cars)

We ask Reatta owners to send us information on their cars. The database has revealed many things that were not known when we started.

The major contributor to the 1991 Reatta list was/is Stan Leslie. Stan owns two low mileage 1991's a coupe and convertible. He was also employed by GM Power Train until a couple years back. Using know 1991 cars, Stan generated the complete list of 1519 Reattas built in 1991.

With his math knowledge and GM inside information he was able to determine the "check digit" on all the cars.

The next question that arose...... all documentation from GM/Buick said 1519 cars were built but we know the last car built was 1554 .... what happened to the 34 cars? Stan did several thing. (1) he ran a carfax on hundreds of 1991 vins. (2) he checked available GM records (3) he looked a 1990/1991 issues of "Automotive News" which published production build numbers for automobiles being produced weekly.

That exercise revealed that 34 vin numbers were assigned but not built. Anyone can confirm this by running a Compnine request on any of the 34 vins.

The second major contributor to the 1991 Reatta information was a Toledo Buick dealer that sent me 8 pages of information on 1991 Reatta convertibles. This information list all 305 1991 Reatta convertible vin number, charge, ship, status, paint, top, trim, seat option, CD, Stripe color, wheels, calif emi, and comments. This gives us a wealth of info on 1991 convertibles. The "status" column show which cars were sent to dealers, went to employees, and were scrapped. The "wheel" column show the cars built with white wheels. The comment column give the employee name that was getting a car.

All of this info has been shared with Reatta Div members, and is part of the database.

"The goal was to make anything possible." that statement is an opinion. By the Spring of 1991 Buick was on a downhill slide with the Reatta. They were building cars to keep the plant open and union workers employed. 45 new Reatta convertibles were donated to trade schools. Demand for the Reatta was gone.

Anyone familiar with the Craft Centre would agree that they had flexability in building Reattas, however, there was no indescriminate building of Reattas. GM/Buick did not build cars without documentation. Johnny Cash built a Cadillac from pieces but he did it at home. Line workers could not add parts or change colors. There are people assigned to inventory and the parts count must match or you either run out of parts or have extra parts. Anyone that has worked at a manufacturing plant knows how this works.

I am attaching sheet 8 of the 1991 convertible list. The last Reatta convertible built was 900622

Edited June 14, 2013 by Barney Eaton (see edit history)

[Guest tempest6cyl]

"Body in white" was a term used to describe the body as it came out of the elpo dip prior to being painted.

In the auto assembly plants I've been in, "Body in white" or BIW, generally has referred to the body before color coat. There has been some variation whether it's before or after e-coat but, it's basically the output of the bodyshop. In my usual engineering environment, BIW is the body structure before closure panels are attached (hood, doors, fenders, etc.). If it's important to the discussion, like if you're discussing BIW weight, it's always good to clarify the content.

I was told back some 28 years ago that the term came from when the auto companies would build up some of the first bodies by hand to verify fit of the parts. These parts were painted white with gridlines scribed into them. The lines could then be used to align the parts. Seeing that this was 1985 and Don had been in the business for 40 years at the time, I had no reason to doubt him. In the same era, body panels were drawn on die plates which were sheets of aluminum painted white. The lines were scratched in the surface. Apparently white was a popular color to paint metal in the engineering environment. While the hand built scribed bodies I've worked with were blued and scribed so I haven't personally seen a white one, I have actually seen die plates from the mid sixties.

[Guest steveskyhawk]

This conversation is awsome. Pretty obvious the hard data available on completed cars is incomplete at best and in need of further study. The listing I included in the first post of this thread confirms a GM listing for a green 91 Reatta convertible specific part. While it doesn't prove any green convertibles were built, it does confirm GM intended to build them.

Question: If a unit is listed as BIW or Body in White is it possible that the unit was destined to get a non standard color or color combination OR possibly be finished in a color OTHER than the color listed on standard documents?

[Ronnie]

Question: If a unit is listed as BIW or Body in White is it possible that the unit was destined to get a non standard color or color combination OR possibly be finished in a color OTHER than the color listed on standard documents?

No

[Guest steveskyhawk]

Not that long ago we were told that were no Maui Blue Reattas with tan interior. We now know that there were.

We were also told there were no Saphire blue Reattas with tan interior. We found that to be false also.

It was once believed that cloth convertible tops were never factory installed on Reatta Convertibles. You guessed it, wrong again.

Somebody said that the 1990 Select 60 Convertible never came with the special Select 60 hood ornament. Wouldn't you know it? There is an ad on eBay right now for a 4000 mile 1990 Select 60 Reatta convertible with the Special hood ornament right on the hood.

Now we find a part listed specifically for a Green 91 Reatta Convertible and are told they are really made for a Corvette. What gives?

Same source has told that there were no Green 1991 Reatta Convertibles made. I disagree. Evidence I have seen indicates that there were. We have been told by Craft Centre management that there were actually four. One of which went to MSU. I was told by another person (that bought a new 91 Reatta Convertible) that there was a green Reatta Convertible on on the showroom floor right next to the car he bought. He went on to say he thinks he knew the woman that bought it. I believe these people are telling the truth, thus my opinion. Credible eye witnesses trump all incomplete data.

It is my sincere hope that somone that owns or had owned one of these green verts sees our debate on this forum and comes forward with the answers.

In the mean time bear in mind that it took a long time to convince everyone that the world really wasn't flat. A couple centuries ago I would have been burned at the stake for my beliefs.

[KDirk]

A couple of interesting things come to light based upon the build data page Barney posted in #22. First, 8 of the 25 cars listed on that page were scrapped. Were these all victims of the cowl shake issue, and were cars near the end of roadster production more prone to this, or was it relatively consistent through the entire build?

Second, one can clearly see there are gaps in the VINS. They are listed sequentially lowest to highest, but several numbers are missing/not documented. Is this because the missing VINS were coupes, not 'verts, or were these numbers assigned but never built (or a combination thereof)?

Third, I did not realize 'vert production ended so early (VIN 622) in the 91 model year. My coupe is #1008, so everything #623 and higher was a coupe based on what this listing shows. Not really germane to this discussion, but I found it interesting the roadster was put out to pasture so much sooner than the hard top.

Fourth, the pictured page of the listing clearly shows the exterior, interior and accent stripe colors for each car built and at least for the page shown all data are present (no blank spaces in the respective columns thus leaving no room for guesses or disputes). If the whole listing is complete in this regard, it would seem to leave little doubt about whether or not any green convertibles were built. Unless one can prove that there was a loose cannon in the craft centre who was building cars contrary to what was on the build sheet/RPO sticker, what is shown on the listing is gospel. That polo green was a standard available color for 91 also means that there is no reason it wouldn't be shown on this listing if a car was built in that color. One could speculate that if a non-standard color that was not offered on the Reatta were used it might be "fudged" as something else on the listing, but there is no way I can see a polo green car being built at the factory and it not being shown that way in this document.

Moreover, while it is [remotely] conceivable that a last minute undocumented interior treatment change could be made on the fly as it may have been physically easy to do so (grab different color seats/panels from inventory and install/bolt in) I have a difficult time accepting that things could have been done so informally. Special orders were accommodated [to a point], but the integrity of the order tracking, inventory management and build process would not have been compromised by off the cuff "hey, let's try this for something different" changes that were not authorized.

As well, altering the paint color spec'd on the build order is another matter. Changing that would have required cooperation from the paint booth - which was subcontracted to PPG - and bodies were painted in blocks of the same color from my understanding. So to get green, the booth would have to be setup for green paint and it is doubtful they would have changed over what was already "in the gun" to accommodate one car of a different color than the rest of the units being painted that day. Finally, if one looks at all 8 pages of the list, one could see if the paint/top column shows green/tan (or green with any color top for that matter) for any car listed. If none are to be found there it seems the matter would be settled pretty definitively unless/until someone can produce a 91 convertible with provably original factory polo green paint.

Presuming the list does not show any car with green paint (I have seen only the page posted here, which is the 8th of 8 pages so I cannot and do not purport to speak on this with any authority) and one does show up somewhere down the road, then there will be some explaining to do. Until then, it is rumor or wishful thinking. Again, I'd like to think at least one exists, and would be quite please to find out it did. At this point though, based just on available documentation (which in the minds of most people will always carry more weight as proof than hearsay and anecdotal recollections) it appears none were built. That's a shame as it would have looked great in green.

KDirk

[wws944]

...Third, I did not realize 'vert production ended so early (VIN 622) in the 91 model year. My coupe is #1008, so everything #623 and higher was a coupe based on what this listing shows. Not really germane to this discussion, but I found it interesting the roadster was put out to pasture so much sooner than the hard top....

They were too expensive and weren't selling. My dad bought our '90 in Nov of '91, new from the dealer. Had been sitting on the lot for well over a year.

[Vincent Vega]

I'm going to get more popcorn, I'll be right back. Anyone need anything while I'm up?