Today's shoot (and test drive): 1991 Buick Park Avenue 3.8 V6

Rupert · October 06, 2014, 07:31:24 PM

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.

Advanced?! HA!

MexicoCityM3 · 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.

MX793 · 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.

CALL_911 · October 06, 2014, 07:57:48 PM

Come on. These things weren't that bad

2o6 · October 06, 2014, 08:09:37 PM

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.

Byteme · October 06, 2014, 08:51:13 PM

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!

Rupert · October 06, 2014, 11:39:22 PM

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.

Soup DeVille · October 07, 2014, 12:50:47 AM

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.

Northlands · October 07, 2014, 08:10:14 PM

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.

Rupert · 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.

cawimmer430 · October 08, 2014, 05:07:57 AM

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.

I also liked the fancy gadgets and features that this car had, especially for the time. They're actually useful IMO!

cawimmer430 · October 08, 2014, 05:08:11 AM

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.

veeman · October 08, 2014, 03:19:23 PM

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.

Northlands · October 08, 2014, 03:51:26 PM

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.

12,000 RPM · October 10, 2014, 08:45:03 AM

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"

cawimmer430 · October 12, 2014, 11:36:11 AM

I wonder how people will react when I post shots of the upcoming 1977 Cadillac Eldorado Biarritz shooting? You better believe it.

The owner wants a shoot.

"Oh my god, Wimmer! That tank has a 'Ring time of 24 minutes and 55 seconds! It blows!"

Soup DeVille · 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.

Laconian · October 12, 2014, 11:38:22 PM

Please to be taking that thing on the ring. You'd be Jalopnik-famous.

Soup DeVille · October 12, 2014, 11:44:06 PM

I'm not sure what would fail first, but no way its surviving a lap driven in earnest.

AutobahnSHO · October 13, 2014, 07:37:40 AM

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

cawimmer430 · October 14, 2014, 10:53:16 AM

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.

And nope, he didn't take it on the 'Ring.

cawimmer430 · October 14, 2014, 10:54:16 AM

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!

2o6 · October 14, 2014, 10:59:39 AM

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.

And nope, he didn't take it on the 'Ring.

The 1968 MY car blows it out of the water design wise.

12,000 RPM · 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.

Madman · October 14, 2014, 02:04:03 PM

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.

280Z Turbo · October 14, 2014, 02:19:00 PM

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?

2o6 · October 14, 2014, 07:04:12 PM

Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 14, 2014, 02:19:00 PM
Dust buster vans?

They were really futuristic looking for the day

Soup DeVille · October 15, 2014, 02:21:33 AM

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.

Soup DeVille · October 15, 2014, 02:25:26 AM

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.

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.

12,000 RPM · October 15, 2014, 11:05:32 AM

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.

Today's shoot (and test drive): 1991 Buick Park Avenue 3.8 V6

Byteme

280Z Turbo