Shot this US-spec 1991 Park Avenue today for a private client. He wants to sell the car (58,609 miles). I'm not crazy about these, but I always thought that they looked very elegant and classy.
The good news is that I even got to drive it on the roads that you see in the background. The steering is kind of lifeless, the brakes are a bit mushy but the car is comfortable and feels solid. The suspension is soft, but not "floaty" and around corners it drove quite well. It's no BMW 5er, but I enjoyed the short the test drive. The 3.8 V6 is rated at 175-horsepower according to the papers and it pulled the Buick along nicely.
The owner has nothing but praise for this car. He likes the comfort, space, the gadgets and features and even the fuel consumption is not bad. But, he's not a fan of FWD and transversely-mounted [V6] engines and he already owns a classic inline-6 RWD car, so this one has to go. According to him it's not very stable at high speeds on the Autobahn, so he generally prefers to cruise in it at low speeds.
(http://s14.postimg.org/71mdj2rwh/image.jpg)
(http://s14.postimg.org/4a7p67irl/image.jpg)
(http://s14.postimg.org/5lav0xozl/image.jpg)
(http://s14.postimg.org/4lkk589tt/image.jpg)
(http://s14.postimg.org/o63olqzsx/image.jpg)
(http://s14.postimg.org/gemyn6vnl/image.jpg)
(http://s14.postimg.org/y78iv2cw1/image.jpg)
(http://s14.postimg.org/5gbp50729/image.jpg)
(http://s14.postimg.org/m0dz4zlq9/image.jpg)
(http://s14.postimg.org/43u0349mp/image.jpg)
(http://s14.postimg.org/fhgjebk5d/image.jpg)
(http://s14.postimg.org/xa23m71dt/image.jpg)
Someone tell good 'ole Bob Daniels in Columbus that their Buick is just fine and dandy!
(http://s14.postimg.org/ww0rmlha9/image.jpg)
A snapshot from when I finished my test drive and parked behind my car...
(http://s14.postimg.org/gnkjd48g1/image.jpg)
Ahh I remember these. It's like a couch on wheels. I'd agree with it's unnerving attributes on the autobahn. This was never meant to be a higher speed cruiser. At the time the engine was pretty decent for passing people on the freeway in short bursts.
Around here you only drive that car if you are over 65 or black. Truth.
Quote from: Northlands on October 03, 2014, 03:50:30 PM
Ahh I remember these. It's like a couch on wheels. I'd agree with it's unnerving attributes on the autobahn. This was never meant to be a higher speed cruiser. At the time the engine was pretty decent for passing people on the freeway in short bursts.
It did feel like a couch on wheels, but the handling wasn't that bad. I could tell that it didn't want to be driven like a sports sedan, but at reasonable speeds the Buick went around corners pretty nicely. Again, it's not 5er, but it's "capable enough" IMO for everyday driving.
I enjoyed my short test drive with this "geezer car". :thumbsup:
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on October 03, 2014, 04:05:22 PM
Around here you only drive that car if you are over 65 or black. Truth.
But with 22" chrome spinners, right? ;)
Quote from: cawimmer430 on October 03, 2014, 02:45:06 PM
Someone tell good 'ole Bob Daniels in Columbus that their Buick is just fine and dandy!
Looks like good ol' Bob Daniels sold out to Jeff Schmitt back in January, 2013.
http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/morning_call/2013/01/dayton-car-dealer-coming-to-columbus.html (http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/morning_call/2013/01/dayton-car-dealer-coming-to-columbus.html)
But you can tell the new owner yourself how their car is doing.
http://www.jeffschmittbg.com/ (http://www.jeffschmittbg.com/)
Whenever I see these things, for some reason the first things to come to mind are Pennsylvania and cigarettes
You could spend all day in a Walmart parking lot here wimmer and take pictures of ugly, 90's American junk like that until your fingers couldn't push the camera button.
Quote from: Madman on October 04, 2014, 09:46:09 AM
Looks like good ol' Bob Daniels sold out to Jeff Schmitt back in January, 2013.
http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/morning_call/2013/01/dayton-car-dealer-coming-to-columbus.html (http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/morning_call/2013/01/dayton-car-dealer-coming-to-columbus.html)
But you can tell the new owner yourself how their car is doing.
http://www.jeffschmittbg.com/ (http://www.jeffschmittbg.com/)
:lol:
Quote from: Onslaught on October 04, 2014, 11:23:23 AM
You could spend all day in a Walmart parking lot here wimmer and take pictures of ugly, 90's American junk like that until your fingers couldn't push the camera button.
I thought this car was pretty decent given the complaints I heard about 1990s American cars on the
Car and Driver forums.
You're just pissed because it has a V6 and no rotary engine! :devil:
That legendary GM V6 - memorialized on urinals & toilets across the US: "3.8 Lpf / 1.0 gpf"
Quote from: cawimmer430 on October 05, 2014, 03:09:28 AM
I thought this car was pretty decent given the complaints I heard about 1990s American cars on the Car and Driver forums.
You're just pissed because it has a V6 and no rotary engine! :devil:
Nah - they were rubbish, just like it's Bonnevile and Olds 88 (any others?) cousins.
Quote from: Morris Minor on October 05, 2014, 06:14:05 AM
That legendary GM V6 - memorialized on urinals & toilets across the US: "3.8 Lpf / 1.0 gpf"
Lol
They were actually pretty decent when they were new, but not so much anymore.
Quote from: CJ on October 05, 2014, 10:55:50 AM
They were actually pretty decent when they were new, but not so much anymore.
Very reliable too. I still see these driven around quite often.
Quote from: Rockraven on October 05, 2014, 11:16:28 AM
Very reliable too. I still see these driven around quite often.
Because the average Park Avenue driver drives 3000 miles/year and always undercuts the posted limit by at least 25%.
All the '90s Buicks I've seen recently were driven by poor people. Cheap and shitty, but reliable.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on October 03, 2014, 02:45:06 PM
The 3.8 V6 is rated at 175-horsepower according to the papers and it pulled the Buick along nicely.
Well it does have "tuned port injection." I guess the lessor GM cars have untuned port injection.
Quote from: Rupert on October 05, 2014, 01:01:53 PM
All the '90s Buicks I've seen recently were driven by poor people. Cheap and shitty, but reliable.
Of course. You can find a solid driver that'll pass safety for a thousand bucks. Need a part? Scrapyard will have one for five bucks.
Must have been a helluva big tidal wave to wash that whale that far inland. :lol:
I kinda liked it.
It's very soft and comfortable and I felt totally relaxed driving it. The brake feedback is very mushy and vague. That bothered me the most, not the vague steering. :ohyeah:
Did it have Dyna Ride or whatever they called it? Just a lot of bouncing and wallowing.
Quote from: Submariner on October 05, 2014, 11:35:12 AM
Because the average Park Avenue driver drives 3000 miles/year and always undercuts the posted limit by at least 25%.
The GM 3.8L is on Ward's 10 best engines of the 20th century.
The 3.8L is a really solid motor, extremely reliable, surprisingly thrifty on gas, and still remained fairly competitive until GM finally stopped making the damn things a few years ago. Up until recently, there really hasn't been an OHC large V6 that can match the value of the old 3800.
I don't get the "shitty" comment about this era of cars at all. :huh:
Terrible to drive.
Quote from: Rupert on October 05, 2014, 08:19:18 PM
Did it have Dyna Ride or whatever they called it? Just a lot of bouncing and wallowing.
It was surprisingly "composed" despite being soft and clearly comfort-biased. In corners it turned nicely, not sporty, but confident. Is that the "Dyna Ride"? A sort of advanced suspension that tightens in corners but is soft on straights?
For a long distance cruiser this thing would feel very nice. I kinda liked it. Sure, it's not a sports sedan and it would be awful to drive at higher speeds on the Autobahn, but for relaxed cruising this thing can't be beat. I seriously kinda liked it. :mrcool:
Quote from: 2o6 on October 05, 2014, 11:39:48 PM
The GM 3.8L is on Ward's 10 best engines of the 20th century.
The 3.8L is a really solid motor, extremely reliable, surprisingly thrifty on gas, and still remained fairly competitive until GM finally stopped making the damn things a few years ago. Up until recently, there really hasn't been an OHC large V6 that can match the value of the old 3800.
I don't get the "shitty" comment about this era of cars at all. :huh:
The owner is quite happy with the gas mileage. He says that on a good day he can get about 9 L / 100 km and on a bad day 12 L / 100 km, which are both good values for such a heavy car from that era.
Quote from: CJ on October 05, 2014, 10:55:50 AM
They were actually pretty decent when they were new, but not so much anymore.
That's what people tend to not remember. It wasn't too bad at the time. I'm still amazed at how many I see on the roads today.
Plus, it allowed GM to finally exhaust what must have been a massive surplus of gold paint.
Quote from: Rockraven on October 06, 2014, 08:16:28 AM
Plus, it allowed GM to finally exhaust what must have been a massive surplus of gold paint.
:lol:
Quote from: 2o6 on October 05, 2014, 11:39:48 PM
The GM 3.8L is on Ward's 10 best engines of the 20th century.
The 3.8L is a really solid motor, extremely reliable, surprisingly thrifty on gas, and still remained fairly competitive until GM finally stopped making the damn things a few years ago. Up until recently, there really hasn't been an OHC large V6 that can match the value of the old 3800.
I don't get the "shitty" comment about this era of cars at all. :huh:
Yeah they're good engines - perfect for wafting along America's road system. I think the last car to use them was the Buick Lucerne?
Quote from: cawimmer430 on October 06, 2014, 04:46:25 AM
It was surprisingly "composed" despite being soft and clearly comfort-biased. In corners it turned nicely, not sporty, but confident. Is that the "Dyna Ride"? A sort of advanced suspension that tightens in corners but is soft on straights?
For a long distance cruiser this thing would feel very nice. I kinda liked it. Sure, it's not a sports sedan and it would be awful to drive at higher speeds on the Autobahn, but for relaxed cruising this thing can't be beat. I seriously kinda liked it. :mrcool:
Advanced?! HA!
This is crap. I never thought I'd say this: Stay with the 70's american land yachts.
Fortunately the flat, bolsterless, Davenport-like front seats don't encourage taking corners at speed. There's nothing but the friction of the velour upholstery to hold you place when cornering.
Note also the classic late-80s thru early 90s all-metal seatbelt latches. Nothing encourages you not to buckle up like having to grab hold of one of those after your car has been sitting in the hot summer sun for a few hours.
Come on. These things weren't that bad
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on October 06, 2014, 07:43:02 PM
This is crap. I never thought I'd say this: Stay with the 70's american land yachts.
It's not crap at all....
Quote from: Morris Minor on October 06, 2014, 10:56:55 AM
Yeah they're good engines - perfect for wafting along America's road system. I think the last car to use them was the Buick Lucerne?
Yeah, it was replaced by the 3.9L, which has more power but honestly is worse in every way.
Quote from: MX793 on October 06, 2014, 07:44:04 PM
Fortunately the flat, bolsterless, Davenport-like front seats don't encourage taking corners at speed. There's nothing but the friction of the velour upholstery to hold you place when cornering.
Seatbelts!
Quote from: CALL_911 on October 06, 2014, 07:57:48 PM
Come on. These things weren't that bad
They drive so terribly. Otherwise, totally fine.
Quote from: MX793 on October 06, 2014, 07:44:04 PM
Fortunately the flat, bolsterless, Davenport-like front seats don't encourage taking corners at speed. There's nothing but the friction of the velour upholstery to hold you place when cornering.
Note also the classic late-80s thru early 90s all-metal seatbelt latches. Nothing encourages you not to buckle up like having to grab hold of one of those after your car has been sitting in the hot summer sun for a few hours.
Cars, in general, should occasionally remind you that they're not entirely safe.
Quote from: Rupert on October 06, 2014, 11:39:22 PM
They drive so terribly. Otherwise, totally fine.
They appealed to a crowd that could care less about handling on most levels and sold a lot of them. Most of those people aren't alive anymore, or can't see well enough to drive. It truly was the 4 wheeled couch. It wasn't really trying to be anything else. :lol:
My grandparents owned Buicks for years. Most of what Buicks were good for at that time was being a cheaper Caddy. My dad even had a LeSabre of that era because he's tall and he thought that was the only thing that would fit.
It's obviously no 5-Series or sport sedan, that's a given. Still, it was enjoyable and relaxing to drive. No wonder it's popular with senior citizens. :praise:
I also liked the fancy gadgets and features that this car had, especially for the time. They're actually useful IMO!
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on October 06, 2014, 07:43:02 PM
This is crap. I never thought I'd say this: Stay with the 70's american land yachts.
:lol:
Quote from: Rupert on October 07, 2014, 08:11:54 PM
My grandparents owned Buicks for years. Most of what Buicks were good for at that time was being a cheaper Caddy. My dad even had a LeSabre of that era because he's tall and he thought that was the only thing that would fit.
I don't know about the "height" thing but for American interstate highway travel, they were great cars. Very quiet and smooth with decent gas mileage. Felt like a much more expensive car than Camcords of that era and they were much more expensive. The doors were heavy and had a satisfying "thunk" when you closed them. Very little drivetrain noise as opposed to 4 bangers of that era. I think what did them in was the Toyota Avalon. Better at every single thing (except styling) and significantly cheaper.
Quote from: veeman on October 08, 2014, 03:19:23 PM
I don't know about the "height" thing but for American interstate highway travel, they were great cars. Very quiet and smooth with decent gas mileage. Felt like a much more expensive car than Camcords of that era and they were much more expensive. The doors were heavy and had a satisfying "thunk" when you closed them. Very little drivetrain noise as opposed to 4 bangers of that era. I think what did them in was the Toyota Avalon. Better at every single thing (except styling) and significantly cheaper.
Yup. The current loaded Camry and Avalon have out-Buicked GM for some years now.
Quote from: Morris Minor on October 05, 2014, 06:14:05 AM
That legendary GM V6 - memorialized on urinals & toilets across the US: "3.8 Lpf / 1.0 gpf"
:clap:
I wonder how people will react when I post shots of the upcoming 1977 Cadillac Eldorado Biarritz shooting? You better believe it. :praise:
(http://s27.postimg.org/uytdsy2w3/image.jpg)
The owner wants a shoot. :rockon:
"Oh my god, Wimmer! That tank has a 'Ring time of 24 minutes and 55 seconds! It blows!"
:winkguy:
Dude, did he actually take it on the ring?
Oh man, Christian, you don't get more American than that. Too bad its not a few years older, so you could get the true glory of the 500, instead of that wimpy 425. The '77 and '78s just overcompensated by pushing the pimptasticness envelope. Hopefully the CB radio still works, and he's found the original equipment matching pillows.
Please to be taking that thing on the ring. You'd be Jalopnik-famous.
I'm not sure what would fail first, but no way its surviving a lap driven in earnest.
One of these cars went blowing by me at 0530 on a parkway which has lots of rolling humps (bad road construction).
I couldn't tell what the flashing lights were behind me, then as they passed me I saw the whole car was just
BOUNCING
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 12, 2014, 11:33:20 PM
Dude, did he actually take it on the ring?
Oh man, Christian, you don't get more American than that. Too bad its not a few years older, so you could get the true glory of the 500, instead of that wimpy 425. The '77 and '78s just overcompensated by pushing the pimptasticness envelope. Hopefully the CB radio still works, and he's found the original equipment matching pillows.
Yeah, the owner mentioned that it has the "smaller" engine when I asked if it had the 500cid V8. Lovely car, though. You guys know me - THIS IS CAR DESIGN.
If only modern cars looked this good. :rockon: :wub:
And nope, he didn't take it on the 'Ring.
Quote from: Laconian on October 12, 2014, 11:38:22 PM
Please to be taking that thing on the ring. You'd be Jalopnik-famous.
I want to become famous through the quality/creativity of my photos, not abusing gorgeous classic cars on some racetrack that most of the world doesn't care about! :lol:
Quote from: cawimmer430 on October 14, 2014, 10:53:16 AM
Yeah, the owner mentioned that it has the "smaller" engine when I asked if it had the 500cid V8. Lovely car, though. You guys know me - THIS IS CAR DESIGN.
If only modern cars looked this good. :rockon: :wub:
And nope, he didn't take it on the 'Ring.
The 1968 MY car blows it out of the water design wise.
Watching Wimmer try and play this car up as anything better than absolutely awful is HILARIOUS.
That said, I have been meaning to write up an Oppo article on how GM hit a monster design stride in the late 80s/early 90s. The cars were absolute crap, but everything from the Cavalier to the Grand Prix looked damn good IMO. Clean lines, low shoulders, good details, futuristic, airy looks... they looked great.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 14, 2014, 01:55:57 PM
Watching Wimmer try and play this car up as anything better than absolutely awful is HILARIOUS.
That said, I have been meaning to write up an Oppo article on how GM hit a monster design stride in the late 80s/early 90s. The cars were absolute crap, but everything from the Cavalier to the Grand Prix looked damn good IMO. Clean lines, low shoulders, good details, futuristic, airy looks... they looked great.
Really? Apart from the Dustbuster minivans, I can't think of any GM design from that era that was anything other than ordinary.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 14, 2014, 01:55:57 PM
Watching Wimmer try and play this car up as anything better than absolutely awful is HILARIOUS.
That said, I have been meaning to write up an Oppo article on how GM hit a monster design stride in the late 80s/early 90s. The cars were absolute crap, but everything from the Cavalier to the Grand Prix looked damn good IMO. Clean lines, low shoulders, good details, futuristic, airy looks... they looked great.
Dust buster vans?
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 14, 2014, 02:19:00 PM
Dust buster vans?
They were really futuristic looking for the day
Quote from: 2o6 on October 14, 2014, 10:59:39 AM
The 1968 MY car blows it out of the water design wise.
It does, and even for that body style, the '75 is a much cleaner look.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on October 14, 2014, 10:53:16 AM
Yeah, the owner mentioned that it has the "smaller" engine when I asked if it had the 500cid V8. Lovely car, though. You guys know me - THIS IS CAR DESIGN.
If only modern cars looked this good. :rockon: :wub:
And nope, he didn't take it on the 'Ring.
The 425 really wasn't much weaker than the later 500s (really the same block design, just lightened)- but way down from the 1970 spec engine, which guys have dynoed at 350-370hp stock.
Quote from: Madman on October 14, 2014, 02:04:03 PM
Really? Apart from the Dustbuster minivans, I can't think of any GM design from that era that was anything other than ordinary.
I think the J bodies and... W bodies?... from around 1991-1992 looked really good.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 15, 2014, 11:05:32 AM
I think the J bodies and... W bodies?... from around 1991-1992 looked really good.
I think the 1995+ Cavalier is a really well styled and proportioned small car. Too bad they were all abysmal, insipid, trash.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on October 14, 2014, 01:55:57 PM
Watching Wimmer try and play this car up as anything better than absolutely awful is HILARIOUS.
That said, I have been meaning to write up an Oppo article on how GM hit a monster design stride in the late 80s/early 90s. The cars were absolute crap, but everything from the Cavalier to the Grand Prix looked damn good IMO. Clean lines, low shoulders, good details, futuristic, airy looks... they looked great.
Please show me where exactly I am
defending this car?
I am simply stating my non-biased observations about this car after an
enjoyable test drive with it.
Does it drive like a sports sedan? No. Is the handling impressive? No. But does the car wobble and float all over the place? No. The "handling qualities" of this car were better than expected and not what I expected. Power wise I thought the performance was more than sufficient. Without knowing too much detail about GM in the 1990s, I get the distinct impression that for its time this car was quite good and probably one of the better GM/American automotive products out there.
I don't drive cars like this on a daily basis, so it's a welcome and refreshing change from what I usually drive - believe it or not. I will freely admit that i enjoyed driving this car. I enjoyed the lifeless steering and the bench seats and the "American car feel" of that era that were all to present in this machine. I liked it. That's all.
:huh:
Then you're in for a real treat with the Eldorado. That Buick is a race car by comparison.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 16, 2014, 06:53:46 AM
Then you're in for a real treat with the Eldorado. That Buick is a race car by comparison.
The owner won't let me drive it. I'll be allowed to sit in it, but drive it? Not a chance.
Still - the pleasure of being able to shoot such a gorgeous vehicle is like an honor for me! :wub:
Quote from: cawimmer430 on October 16, 2014, 07:00:53 AM
The owner won't let me drive it. I'll be allowed to sit in it, but drive it? Not a chance.
Still - the pleasure of being able to shoot such a gorgeous vehicle is like an honor for me! :wub:
How disappointing.
Quote from: 2o6 on October 15, 2014, 10:42:47 PM
I think the 1995+ Cavalier is a really well styled and proportioned small car. Too bad they were all abysmal, insipid, trash.
It had its moments... but GM's designs in the late 80s/early 90s were damn near Teutonic, but with more glass and expression. I can see why people were fooled into buying them... they looked really good.