What was the worst Buick?

[Dave@Moon]

In the spirit of 59BuickEnthusiast's posting on favorite Buicks, I'd like to start one on which ones we'd like to get rid of if we could. When reading and posting on this one, bear in mind that you WILL be offending someone with your choice and you WILL be offended when someone chooses your car. We don't all like spumoni, so be tolerant!<P>If there is any one Buick I'd get rid of its one that I wouldn't mind as a daily driver, but I think began a process which hurt the marque immeasurably. That is the Buick Apollo from the 1970's. When Buick dealers became just another GM store with this one, the division lost more than its identity, it lost its mission, too. It took 20 years and cars like the Reatta to recover some from this.

[Guest]

Good job Dave! I think you'll out do Muchpower with the number of posts. I have to say that I have always liked the '70s Apollo. The lowpoint would have to be the '80 Skylark.

[Centurion]

I'm treading on dangerous territory here, so want to clarify that some of the models I've identified are not necessarily bad cars, but were simply mistakes for Buick from a marketing or brand management standpoint. Many of these cars seemed to cheapen or confuse the Buick image, in the same way that the Cimarron contributed nothing positive to Cadillac during the 1980's. Although many of the cars I've identified are smaller models, I don't think I'm biased against small cars. It seems, though, that it took GM forever to grasp that smaller, less expensive cars don't have to be cheaply built or poorly engineered. And, since all of these cars were being offered in almost identical form by other GM divisions, it is regretable that Buick jumped on board with its versions. Here goes:<P>Skyhawk - all years<BR>Apollo - '73 to '75<BR>Skylark - '75 to '98 (or whatever year was last)<BR>Roadmaster - '91 to '96<P>To elaborate on a couple of these, I think that the '80 - '85 Skylark X-Body had great promise. The car looked good for its time -- was definitely the nicest of all X-Bodies. It was very spacious for its size and economical to operate. Unfortunately, it was marred by poor workmanship and lousy engineering.<P>My choice of the Roadmaster will surprise many. I like the idea of a V8 and rear wheel drive full-size Buick, but not one that looked only slightly better than the ugly-duckling Caprice on which it was based. I wish like crazy that Buick had done this one right. The market is there for a car with this lay-out, but this clearly was not the car. The front-drive Park Avenue far out-classed the Roadmaster in quality and style.<P>I was sad to see the departure of the Reatta and Riviera in the 1990's, but am pleased to see Buick now offering a "rational" product line that makes sense. Thank goodness Buick is no longer attempting to be all things to all people.

[Guest]

To IRA, I remember a Motor trend writer say " I thought Studabaker went out of business"? (I love Studes, but I get the joke)<BR>To Centurion, Do you know the difference between a Cimarron and a Chevy Caviler? The "Cad" had FELT covered plastic interior mouldings.

[Guest]

How About the '78 Century Fastback Sedan with a gutsy 196 ci V6.

[Dave@Moon]

O.K., so much for the easy ones, now to start some real arguments!<P>By the way, I one had a 1980 Skylark co. car that got a consistant 15 mpg, that's not economical at that size. My father once unloaded a 1977 Estate Wagon because it only got 12 mpg!<P>Now to one that will bug somebody, I've always disliked the 1950 model. I think the 1949 Buick was one of the cleanst, purest designs from GM ever. The '50 model began a period of baroque styling that added visual and real weight to the car's appearance. It was decades before GM got away from the concept that a good car was an unnecessarily heavy one. <P>The 1950 Buick was as well made a car as ever. Mechanically there is little here to fault (except for what I'm told is inadequate braking). Some people even prefer the heavy chrome laden front of this car (but their insurance co.'s didn't). I however think that it began the process of leaving the door open for Raymond Lowey, Bob Bourke and Virgil Exner to steal the styling leads from Harley Earl. <P>After all, it is better to look good than the run good!<P>Comments, anyone????

[Guest]

I like it when a car company takes a leap. Even if I don't like it, they flexed their "art" muscles. I have always liked the '50 Buick, not because it was a beauty, I think we can all agree it wasn't. But because it was a 1950 Buick. The '49 was a graceful swan and the '50 was a ... well.... 1950 Buick. I AM NOT RAGING ON THE 1950 BUICK. It just wasn't Buicks best work.

[Guest]

Ok gentlemen! Here's my 2 cents. I liked the Apollo. My Grandparents had one and I have some fond memories of going places in that car. To bad it caught fire after a friend of mine bought it!<P>My parents had an 80 Skylark (built in April 79) It was a great car! Sure it had its problems but this one was loaded with all the bells and wistles you could get at the time. That car unfortunately was totaled in a 2 car accident. (Is there a family theme happening here?) My parents then got a Chevy Chevette to replace it. Now that's SAD!!!<P>The Roadmaster may not have been as fancy as the Park Ave. but the ride in that car is great. You have to love the ride of those big Buicks. I have an 84 LeSabre and I prefer is ride over my 87 Century.<P>That posses another question. Why did Buick keep that same basic body style for so long?

[Guest]

I would like to include my 2 cents worth in on the discussion of best and worst buicks.<BR>I think that every car that was put into production was made for some reason that Buick specifically had. I think we could all agree that the 80's vehicles (just about all were a transition or a learning period not only for Buick but for ALL manufactures. I grew up in the mid 70's and 80's and was under the hood with my brother working on every imaginable muscle car from Superbees to Grand Sports - as well as the 4 banger sleds of the 80's like the chevettes, escorts, cavaliers and such.<BR>What I getting at is that the 80's were tough and these cars though as bad as they really were, was really a necessity now looking backwards to get to where we are today and should still be remembered for their role of keeping the U.S. industry moving. Without the Skylarks, Skyhawks, and Century we may have never have had a GNX. The body lines were all very clean had meaning seaparate of imports but unfortunately the engines was a proving grounds for GM at the owners expense.<BR>Growing up I dreamed of buying a new car with the attributes of the muscle car era, but reality set in and my first new car was a 1985 Buick Skyhawk (T-type 5 speed). This thing was loaded, yes it lacked a REAL powerplant and initially I didnt consider it a real car. BUT I travled ALOT and it brought me home all the time (it did limp back a few times). I finally ran it up to 474,000 miles in 1996 all the while keeping it concurrently with many other new vehicles until it got destroyed by a deer and a bridge abutment. I had a love hate relationship with this car so much that I found another (but a Turbo) immediately with 40,000 origial miles and have completely restored it - why? Because it has a history worthy of remembering whether good or bad. After all how good would the best Buick be if none were bad? And twenty years from now how interesting would it be if every Buick from the eighties at a show is a GNX or Turbo Regal - which by the way is among my picks for best.<BR>So belive it or not my vote for the worst Buick EVER is a 1982-1989 Skyhawk particulary the non T-types. Thats what I love about them no one else wants them.<P>Preference is in the individual and what just happens to be under the tarp in his garage <P>I must admit that if they would have put a heftier engine to that 4 or a 5 speed trans they would have had a good combination with the weight, power, and T-type suspension!<P>My vote for the Best Buick would be a 49. Very clean beautiful lines match with excellent engineering. Buick will never be like that again. GM will never have the ability to afford a all Buick - unique from the other makes and like chrysler someday may need to eliminate a line (Hopefully Pontiac!!).<P>I know this is a long 2cents worth but if you like something who cares what everybody else wants. something bad is just different<P>On a different note I need some emblems (plates) which are discontinued for another T-type I have. These are now discontinued if anybody has a lead - let me know.

[Guest]

Dave, Yes a '58 is art! ANd the '58 Pontiac is even better! I love those cars. I love them from afar though, I can't afford the chrome work!

[Dave@Moon]

The X cars (Skylark 1980-85) had more than problems! They were on the market for a few weeks when they had to be recalled because the spare tire wouldn't fit the front hub! How'd you like to be the lucky owner who volunteered for that little bit of R & D?<P>I must say my personal experience w/ J-bodies was probably worse, however. By then (1982) I was out of the U.S. car loop, and would stay so for the next 14 years. My wife's best friend had an '84 which was bought for her new by a wealthy aunt (so she couldn't unload it!). For three years this car would lose all electrical power except ignition in hard left turns. No dealer could find the problem or fix it. For some reason, I think it was bought out of state, it wasn't covered under lemon laws either. That car lost GM several loyal customers in her family.<P>Also I'm really glad somebody else found the 1991 Roadmaster to be an overweight lame duck like me. To me the problem was that it owed to much styling heritage to the 1971-1976 cars, but didn't really have the bulk to pull it off. The wagon especially looks ridiculous, with that huge loooking body perched on that undersized platform. I think the car looks like a 5'3" bodybuilder.<P>A few last questions, am I to guess that everyone thinks the B-58 Limited was a rolling work of art? Everyone loves the '39 grille? No one regrets what Fisher Body did to Harley Earl's 1929 design? Everyone's OK with red wheel wells? All of the air suspension cars are holding up OK?

[Dominic_Martinelli]

Although I'm a fan of the late Roadmasters, I like Dave's compairison of it to a 5'3" bodybuilder. I found that extremely humorous. I do not care for the styling of the Roadmaster Estate Wagons much myself. The front clip was the same as the Caprice with the exception of the Buick-style grille replacing the Chevy's eggcrate. I'd have liked it much better had it used the same front clip as the sedans. Another criticism of the wagons and every post 1950's wagon with woodgrain for that matter; Who's bright idea was it to put the woodgrain applique on the FRONT FENDERS???? Have they never seen a REAL WOODY? I think if you are going to imatate someone or something...as least do it right. The woodgrain should have been reserved to the doors and the rest of the body. Also, the 1991 wagons could barely get out of their own way with the 5.0 liter V-8. Thank goodness someone decided to put a 350 (albeit only with 180 horses) in it in 1992. <BR>And just to set the record straight, the Sedans came out for 1992. The Wagon was the first to carry the Roadmaster name in 1991. <BR><P>------------------<BR><P>

[Guest]

I have always liked the late Roadmaster Wagon. It has the glass roof that I loved to look out of in the new '65 Sportwagon demonstrators my dad would bring home. If I had the dough I'd buy one and have billit aluminum wheels made that look like '57 Buick Caballero wheel covers, then put four '57 portholes in the front fenders.....<BR>"Ah per chance to dream"

[Guest]

The 94-96 Roadmasters, including the wagons, had an iron-headed version of the Corvette's LT1 (the same engine as the Impala SS) and would more than get out of its own way. I think the ugliest (maybe not the worst) was the Skylark of the early 90's with the front end that looked like a beak.

[Dave@Moon]

Now its time for me to be a modern Buick's advocate! I may be the only person on earth who liked the 1991 Skylark, at least as a 2 door. As a coupe, the front end worked with the rest of the design. It was a bit overdramatic for a 4 door sedan, I'll admit.<P>I find I like a lot of cars with this problem. My 1960 LeSabre is a beautifiul coupe. It also makes a great looking convertible and is at least passable as a 4 door "flattop" hardtop. As a wagon or a sedan, I'll admit the car looks like Batman's milk truck.<P>I also used to have 2 Mopars like this, 1970 Duster and 1969 Coronet 500 coupes. Their coupes and converitbles were gorgeous, but as 4 doors they just didn't make it. I still think the 1970 Coronet wagon is the most unintentionally funny/humorous looking car ever built.<P>If anyone tells you "I used to hate the looks of these cars, but now I don't mind them so much", its usually because they used to see a lot more sedans and wagons and a lot less coupes of the car in question.

[Guest]

The X-bodies worst? If you compare them to the other buicks built in the same time period I don't think so. And in regards to the 2.8 being a bad motor-A Skylark with the HO 2.8 would outrun any of the other Buick offerings up until 84 when the 3.8 Turbo started to make some real power. Certainly not a 70 Stage 1, but what is?

[Guest]

I think I can agree with the ugly comment... those things were horrid looking. Someone locally owned one and added neon ground effect lighting and lowered it right to the asphalt. I can't say it looked any better.<P>Crappiest models would have to include the early 80's skylark. The 2.5 Pontiac and 2.8 Chevy were crappy enough in there own econocars, let alone in a Buick. The funny thing is, though, as much as we joke about how bad they are, has anyone noticed how many are still on the road? Quite a few around here....

[Guest]

Thats a scary thought, eh?<P>A high-output 2.8? <P>Anyways, my analysis for 2.8's comes from my experience in the engine shop... we had quite a few 2.8's come in (a few years ago when they were still worth something) and most came with crankshaft problems. It seems crank tolerances just weren't what they were supposed to be.<P>I have had two 2.8's. My '86 S10 one ran like a top--even after 320000 km's. The 700R4 tranny lost 2nd gear, so I swapped a T5 in its place. The only reason I swapped out the 2.8 is because I had aquired (as a flat trade for an old 305) an NOS 3.8 crate motor.... a little more torque than the 2.8er.<P>The other was in an '84 Camaro parts car I bought off a friend. The thing rapped like crazy (crankshaft, typical....) so they figured, lets blow it up! Full throttle for about 5 minutes like that in neutrel took care of that. One piston is to this day entirely missing (probably fired out the exxhaust) and there's one big mutha of a hole in the block.... I guess thats why I only paid $30 for the car, eh?<p>[This message has been edited by Derek Broerse (edited 01-17-2000).]

[Dave@Moon]

That's it!!! I've had it!<P>I've spent the last five minutes trying to think of a 1981 Buick WORSE than an X-car. I can't do it. It's hopeless.<P>There is none.<P>Wait a minute, it's coming to me.<P>I can almost make it out through the fog.<P>Hey, that's not fog. It's diesel exhaust.<P>Oh yeah!

[Guest]

The all-time worst Buick of all time is the '58 Models. Gas hogs, over-chromed glitch-wagons. I bought a 22,000 mile Super two-door in 1966 for $300. I drove it three months, put it in a demolition derby, then paid a guy $100 to crush what was left so no one would ever get stuck with that piece of garbage again!! I have had Buicks all my life, but would never have another '58.

[Dominic_Martinelli]

Greg, I hate to ask you this but have you checked the values of a low mileage, '58 Buick Super two door lately? And you had it crushed??? HA HA HA HA HA HA. You'd have done yourself a HUGE favor had you just put the car up on blocks and let it sit for another 30 years. You'd have gotten much more than 100 measly bucks for it today. Had I done something like that, I wouldn't be telling many people about it and be proud of that fact. <P>The '58 Buicks were a bit gaudy, didn't get the greatest mileage, and did have some problems with the air-suspension; but man, it's not like any other '58 car was that great. The Oldsmobile had just about as much chrome. The Caddies were fussy looking affairs too. The Lincolns...now there is BAD mileage and strange styling indeed. The Edsel??? Need we even go there??? Aside from the styling, they had defects galore! Push-buttons that couldn't be budged with a hammer, really bad fit and finish, leaky everythings, and premature rust made the Edsel a REAL winner; oh yeah. Chrylser, DeSoto? If the body even lasted until 1966 you were REALLY lucky. <P>My vote for a bad Buick: the early 80's Diesel powered Riviera, Electra, LeSabre, and Regal. That Olds 350 wasn't a bad gas engine but just wasn't sturdy enough to be a diesel. Good idea I suppose, but POORLY executed. <P>I have also never seen a Skyhawk that had all it's B-U-I-C-K letters on the tail lights...usually its ICK or BU CK or UIC or some combination of the five. Never the whole Buick name, maybe it's just as well.<p>[This message has been edited by Dominic_Martinelli (edited 01-18-2000).]

[Guest my3buicks]

This will certainly not be a popular choice for worst Buick. I always thought I would like to own a Reatta, sexy looks, imagemobile, just the car I thought I would like to have for a fun toy. Then I started watchin g the Reatta Discussion/help page at this site, they sound like they are a financial nightmare to own. Sounds like they are plagued with electrical problems and the reliability sounds horrific. I know there will be plenty that disagree, but read the posts, they speak for themselves! <p>[This message has been edited by my3buicks (edited 01-20-2000).]

[Dave@Moon]

A BIT GAUDY???? 200 lbs. of purely decorative chrome (i.e. not including the grille, bumper, etc.) is not a bit anything! There's a popular theory that toward the end of his career Harley Earl was hiding a problem w/ failing vision. I think that may be the only explanation for the progressive loss of cohesive design over 1956-1958. <P>And if you want to pick on 1958 uglies, the Mercury has to take the prize. Even the emblems as stand alone pieces look overdrawn. <P>I'm glad I wasn't in the market for a new car in 1958.

[Guest]

1958 Buicks are awesome cars. Same goes for 58 Oldsmobiles. I would not trade my 58 Roadmaster or 58 98 coupe for all the GS's or GSX's you could find. Who cares if they are a bit gaudy in retrospect, at least they have class. In forty years how many new cars now could you say that about? With all the cheap materials they are made of today, not many will be left. As far as worst Buick, I could not tell you, all the ones I have owned or currently own were/are killer machines. <BR>

[Guest]

I can't believe that anybody would deliberately crush any classic car of any make (even Fords)!<P>Well, my vote would be the '70's Nova, I mean Apollo, with the '80's boxes a close second.<P>I know nobody likes the X bodies, but we just sold an '81 that ran all this time with little problems.<P>But crush an old Buick? Blasphemy!

[Dave@Moon]

The demo derby bugs me more than the crushing. I was recently @ one (my 8 yearold is a fan) where in a single heat out of 20 cars there was a 1960 Invicta, a 1966 T-Bird & a near mint 1966 Olds 98 2 door hardtop entered. Of course these were the first cars eliminated, even the Fairmont outlasted them. Nothing ever wins these things anyway except 1976 Caprice wagons.<P>Oh yea, top prize if you won: $200, a trophy and kiss. One fender off any of these cars was worth more than that.

[Guest]

I wouldn't be able to stand it. (I go nuts when they crash an old car in a movie).Why not use a new Toyota!

[Guest]

Anyone remember the Waco, Texas incident?<P>Right on TV, they show the Army guys running over one of the member's SS396 El Camino to try and [censored] them off enough to show themselves.<P>Movies like Christine, Thelma and Louise, and many others (Nordstrom Shoes ad as mentioned in the other base) are responsible for the destruction of many cars... Home Improvement's '55 Nomad... more and more<P><BR>I know they're often painted up junkers etc., but whats junk or 'rusted out' to you guys down south is very usable to us poor Rust Belt owners.<P>Some people just have no morals when it comes to these sort of things. <BR>

[Dave@Moon]

Interesting side note, the movie Christine destroyed 1/3 of the known remaining 1958 Furys that then existed.<P>Other wonderful things to witness: in "War of the Roses" a real Morgan is crushed by a tank, 97 1969 Chargers are destroyed to make "The Dukes of Hazard", in "The Love Bug" you can see all manner irreplacable of vintage race cars see their demise. As long as market values continue to be emphasized by our hobby, our cars will be seen by the outside world as consumer commodities and not something to be cherished for their intrinsic value (anybody @ Collectible Automobile or Special Interest Autos out there listening?).

[Guest]

In response to the comments made about the over blown 58 Chrysler rust problem by Dominic Martinelli. I have a 58 Chrysler Saratoga 4 door hard top. I bought it from the 3rd owners, and it has basically been outside all of it's life. And yet it's frame hasn't broken, the windshield or rear window frame hasn't rotted out and let the glass lay loose like most 58 Buicks or other unrestored GM products of that era I have seen. And yet here is one more person droning on about the way over stated 58 Chrysler rust problem. This almost mythic rust problem with these cars only was ever concerned about the very front edge of the front fenders. I have never seen a 57-58 Chrysler break the frame and suspension members like the similar 58 to 64 year GM products seem to do. I have seen so many 58 Buicks in junkyards with their headlights only held on by the wires, it's not funny. This may be a Buick forum, but remember people who like other car's come in here as well. I like certain Buicks, and I am even keeping an eye on my aunt's big 72 Buick Electra 4 door,so when she can't drive it anymore, I can buy it and give it the care it deserves. But just remember , before you start slamming another car, be sure you know what you are talking about. My 58 Chrysler is solid as a rock, even after being stored outside for over 40 years! I could say other things, but that would be disrespectful of the other Buick fans here. I know they like their cars as much as I like my 58 and my aunt's Buick. Just do me a favor ,and quit spreading that old wive's tale of the 58 Chrysler rust problem. That was only started to somehow smear Chrysler's reputation after everyone saw how far ahead in styling they were in those years. And it worked somewhat, because people will believe and repeat a lie. I just had hoped that by being car enthusiasts, we could discount a few of the old myths's instead of repeating them verbatim years afterward like they are the truth. Other fans of other makes come in here as well, after all, this is the AACA website.

[Guest my3buicks]

If you have a solid 58 Chrysler then consider yourself lucky. I agree with the Martinelli post that the Chrysler products were extremely prone to rust. Even the major automotive book publishers always have as a negative, major rust/prone to rust etc.

[Dave@Moon]

I live at the epicenter of the rust belt (Pittsburgh). We use more salt per mile each year than any other city in America. I've seen more rust damage than most people see in 2 lifetimes, and I was using Bondo to get cars through PA's corrupt inspection program when I was 8 & 9 years old. I've junked 6 year old cars (AMC) for rust, known cars to be junked @ 3 years for rust (Nova), and had to replace an entire front clip on a car for rust @ age 9 MONTHS (Aspen)!!!!!<P>No car is rustproof, and often cars develope a reputation for rusting based on how they perform relative to previous similar models. The 1957 Chrysler line was probably the single most innovative car line ever introduced by a major manufacturer. They're also among the most beautiful (except for the Dodges, those were made for people who equated chrome for beauty or status). <P>The real problem for the 1957 Chrysler rep for rust is that the previous models going back decades were among the least rust prone cars of their era. The 1957 Chryslers rusted dramatically compared to 1956 Chryslers. They were probably less rust prone than AMC, Studebaker or Ford models of those years, but that didn't matter to a clientelle that based their opinions on their experience with their older models. <P>My father was a dyed-in-the-wool Mopar man, and he never bought any Chrysler from 1957-1963. Of course the 2 Chevy's, 1 Caddy and 1 Ford we had from that era were all worse than any Mopar we had, but that didn't matter. The evil you avoid was always the greatest one (at least in your head).<P>Here's a good question, what Buick had this reputation? We've already discussed how many cars from 1970 on were really Buicks in name only, so Skyhawk horror stories come to mind but may not be to the point. Does Buick have a "Rustang" in it's past? The only car that comes to mind at all for me is the 1961 Special, and compared to it's competators I don't think any were better than it at rust avoidance. <P>Anybody?<P><p>[This message has been edited by Dave@Moon (edited 01-28-2000).]

[Guest]

I HAD A 73 APPOLLO V-8 350 DISC BRAKES 2DR FASTBACK. I ADDED HEI AND LOVED THE CAR. PRETTIER THAT ANY NOVA!<P>THE WORST WAS SKYHAWK, ONLY THING WORTH SALVAGING ON THAT CAR WAS THE SAGINAW 4 SPD.

[Guest]

Well. My3Buicks, I can look right outside at my 58 Chrysler and know that all the automotive magazine pundit and other writers of that time who were so influenced by GM were dead wrong. I have the proof setting right on my property. Maybe next time you should see what reality is instead of listening to a bunch of hearsay that gets repeated like the gospel truth. I appreciate Dave@Moon's comments, they seem a lot more reality based. Compared to the earlier models, the 58 and later Chrysler products are slightly less solid. But I have never seen a Chrysler product drop the bumper and rear frame rails on the ground like all the X-frame GM products were doing in the 70's when they were only 10 to 15 years old. Even my mother's 61 Impala and my brother's 62 Impala had to be sold because they had become unsafe to drive. And that was something I saw with my own eyes, not some magazine writer's opinion, just sheer harsh reality. I will take a little rust over a headlight bezel to a broken unsafe frame any day. The shop where I worked at as a teen made fixing GM frame rust a specialty of theirs, and believe me, there was plenty of work for them.

[Guest my3buicks]

Well there is always a chance of one dinosour living undiscovered. Same goes for your 58 Chrysler. It is one of a few that survived. Probably had a posh life and was never out in the weather.

[Guest]

Didn't you read, My3Buicks? I said that Chrysler had bee kept outside since 1983 before I bought it, and for additional information, it was a family car that sat outside most of it's life. It's a 58 Chrysler 4 door hard top family car that has been OUTSIDE most of it's life. Not a pampered vehicle by any means. Sorry that you can't accept the fact that this car hasn't crumbled into powder like the MYTH says. But life is like that sometimes. And all the myths and legends, and especially the bias based on lies are not going to make the surviving 58 Chryslers fall to dust. Sorry to disappoint you, that's just the way it is. But there is good money in fixing GM frames, just check Hemmings, there are people who specialize in that repair.

[Guest my3buicks]

Did you say the car was from Arizona? Myths and legends come from some degree of truth. If 58 Chryslers are so great, where are they all? Probably recycled into Japenese cars, thus explaining their rust problems.

[Dave@Moon]

Saginaw 4-speeds in Skyhawks were great, when they came with the right shifter. I had a college friend who bought an Olds equivalent new, the Olds name slips my mind and does it really matter? This guilded chariot had the Saginaw 4-speed with the shifter for a Cutlass! This nerd drove this car for nearly 2 months, shifting 1-3-2-4! My roomate and I finally convinced him something was wrong, and he traded it in on a Cutlass (this was 1978). At least the dealer gave him full purchase credit, and this before there were lemon laws. <P>The reason I picked on the Apollo was because it began the process full tilt by which the Skyhawk could be made. Before the Apollo, there was always something unique on/in a car that said Buick on it besides just saying Buick on it. Even the early mid-size cars through 1972 had at least one unique drivetrain available. The Apollo was a wonderful Chevy, but it wasn't a Buick!

[Guest]

No, 3Buicks, the car is in West Virginia, capital of potholes and salt in the winter time. And I know of about 15 1958 model Chrysler products in my area that are original and still running. No 58 Buicks at all and one very restored with lots of welding 58 Chevrolet and several 58 Cadillacs. So despite your obvious bias, and willingness to make up facts like assuming the car was in Arizona, you are still wrong. Also, I did some research. The original problem was with 57 models, not 58. And only very low line cheap models also. So you have been repeating incorrect facts for years apparently. This problem was only a very early 57 model year problem, and I remember JC Whitney and many others carrying patch panels for the headlights of all 50's model cars, not just Mopars. So I am going to leave on this debate, cause I can see you have your mind made up. But the simple fact is, here on the eastern part of the country, up here in hill country where the salt flies every year, we still have 57 and 58 model Chrysler products around, some being driven every day. It's been awhile since I have seen a 57 or 58 Buick though. Pretty cars, I kind of miss them to be honest.I'll got to a car show soon, maybe I can find a restored one to look at.

[Guest my3buicks]

Well, now I know where to look for the entire population of 58 Chryslers. They are roaming the hills of West Virginia. I must admit, I havn't seen to many 58 Buicks running around these parts on a daily basis either. We usually stop driving cars like that for every day transportaion in these parts.