2012 Buick Regal...

[MrHorspwer]

Edmunds did a comparison between a 1987 Grand National and a 2012 Regal GS:

http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline...d-national.html

Yes, the Grand National was quicker than the Regal GS.

We all expect old cars to handle poorly, but just how poorly is really a shock. The Grand National ran the slalom at 59.2 MPH and pulled 0.77 G on the skidpad. That's 10 MPH slower and 0.15 G less than the Regal GS. It also took nearly 40 feet longer to stop from 60 MPH.

Suspect braking and row-boat handling? 1980s refinment and crash-worthiness? But hey... you could hang your arm out the window. You're really saying you'd take a 1987 Buick Regal (Grand National being an exception) over a 2012 Regal or a 1987 Camaro IROC-Z over a 2012 Camaro SS? You hate yourself that much?

As I said, the Grand National was an exception... because the standard Buick Regal was such a hot car, right? From the era when Buick made non-geezermobiles:

Man, look at that stylish... hood ornament. Those simulated wire hubcaps and thin whitewalls? No grandpa details here! Buick 3.8L V6 with the 2 barrel? A rocketship by any standard! Don't forget about the half-vinyl top!

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
...

As I said, the Grand National was an exception... because the standard Buick Regal was such a hot car, right? From the era when Buick made non-geezermobiles:

Man, look at that stylish... hood ornament. Those simulated wire hubcaps and thin whitewalls? No grandpa details here! Buick 3.8L V6 with the 2 barrel? A rocketship by any standard! Don't forget about the half-vinyl top!

They had the best variant of the Cavalier:

But that's not saying much.

There was no middle ground at Buick then. Full on Geezermobile or T-type

 

[spasm3]

I would take the grand national in a second over the 2012 regal.

All the regular 87 regal needs is white letter tires, 60s. ditch the wire wheel covers and a set of glasspacks.

I'm not saying the handling of an 87 car compares with a 2012. I'm talking about the styling. I'm saying buick used to make cool cars and something for the geezers. now they only make get me to the 5:00 buffet in florida geezermobile.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: Rock_Hudstone
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
IMHO I had no love for a single GM product built from the early 70's up until 2005 at least. But GM is changing fast, its not your dads GM anymore.

I'll take my dads GM any day.

One could chose any number of makes and models to fit any budget, with attractive body styles, hardtop, convertible. Two door or four doors, where you could comfortably rest your arm with the window down, (try that in a new Regal or Camaro).
Multiple powertrains, interior/exterior colors, trim lines, cloth/fabric/leather bench or bucket seating, pick and choose options without having to buy expensive packages with stuff you don't want, etc, etc.

Today its four doors only, a half dozen exterior colors, three of which are always black, silver, and a dark maroon. Three interior colors; beige, gray or black (sometimes in leather only or some fabric backpacks are made from).

All wrapped up in odd or downright ugly bodies with price tags that most people need 4 or 5 years to pay off, if you have a good size down payment.

Yeah, I'll take my dads GM.



Yeah I agree there's some GM revisionist history going on. For example people forget or don't know the Camaro was one of the best handling cars in the early 80's. Or GM styling was consider very good at the time. Or that you could order your car with whatever options you wanted or didn't want. Let's put every other automakers car up through out history and critique shortcomings in styling and performance and even durability.

 

[Hokiefyd]

My first car was an '84 Olds Cutlass and it was one of the best cars I've owned. If all of them were like mine, the dark days weren't so bad after all. It handled very well for its size with the F41 suspension package and the little 307 V-8 moved the car around quite well. Had bucket seats, floor console with floor shifter, full gauge package with tachometer and oil pressure/volt/alt/fuel gauges. Power everything including driver's seat. It was a well-equipped and "sporty" car for its day, and looked great. I won a fair number of trophies with it at car shows also. I sold it about 10 years ago, and I'd buy it back in a minute if I had the chance.

The exterior color was white and the interior was maroon, a very striking color combo.

 

[SLCraig]

Originally Posted By: exranger06
I still can't believe the Regal is available with a manual transmission.

It would have me consider buying one in the future, no doubt. The GS looks amazing.

 

[cchase]

I like the styling of the new Regal. It's a bit too Korean overall but it's a tidy looking package.

I have to laugh at the comments about how Buick used to make cars that werent geezer-mobiles (in the 80's). Using the GN as proof is ridiculous, use the regular model and note its geezerosity.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
My first car was an '84 Olds Cutlass and it was one of the best cars I've owned. If all of them were like mine, the dark days weren't so bad after all. It handled very well for its size with the F41 suspension package and the little 307 V-8 moved the car around quite well. Had bucket seats, floor console with floor shifter, full gauge package with tachometer and oil pressure/volt/alt/fuel gauges. Power everything including driver's seat. It was a well-equipped and "sporty" car for its day, and looked great. I won a fair number of trophies with it at car shows also. I sold it about 10 years ago, and I'd buy it back in a minute if I had the chance.

The exterior color was white and the interior was maroon, a very striking color combo.

We toured the GM Arlington plant in Jr High (off season athletics had to take an occupational course) I saw a black Cutlass Salon just like that. Same wheels, no half vinyl top. Fell in love with that car but never could find one like it. I found a LOT of 3.8 Cutlass Supremes and a few "442s" with 307s and TH2004Rs but no sporty clean Salons.

 

[Rock_Hudstone]

I purchased a 17,000mi, 1989 Pontiac Firebird Formula 5.7L in the fall of 1991 for $9800.

Great car, quiet and comfortable except for the faint exhaust rumbel of the 350 TPI. The handling was tenacious, yet rode smooth and would easily smoke the tires into second gear. Arguably, the peak of the F-bodies in my opinion, styling got progressively weird as time went on, at least for Pontiac.

Had to sell it unfortunately, insurance cost were too much for me at the time.

 

[GMBoy]

I own a mint 1987 Grand National. The new Regal is a sweet car, but the 2 are different animals. You cannot compare the new Regal with its front wheel drive to a past era rear drive muscle car. I don't care how much power it makes - it's front wheel drive!

 

[Benzadmiral]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
My first car . . . handled very well for its size with the F41 suspension package and the little 307 V-8 moved the car around quite well. Had bucket seats, floor console with floor shifter, full gauge package with tachometer and oil pressure/volt/alt/fuel gauges. Power everything including driver's seat. It was a well-equipped and "sporty" car for its day, and looked great. . . .

The exterior color was white and the interior was maroon, a very striking color combo.

That is not a geezer-mobile. Gawd, I wish some manufacturer still made full-sized coupes. . . .

 

[spasm3]

Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
My first car . . . handled very well for its size with the F41 suspension package and the little 307 V-8 moved the car around quite well. Had bucket seats, floor console with floor shifter, full gauge package with tachometer and oil pressure/volt/alt/fuel gauges. Power everything including driver's seat. It was a well-equipped and "sporty" car for its day, and looked great. . . .

The exterior color was white and the interior was maroon, a very striking color combo.

That is not a geezer-mobile. Gawd, I wish some manufacturer still made full-sized coupes. . . .


Its cool looking! You could take any of the standard models add white letters and louder exhaust and it looked cool.

 

[aquariuscsm]

I LOVED those early-mid 80s Regals and Cutlasses!!!!!!!!! The Buick GNX is probably the most amazing car ever made,period!

 

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
Edmunds did a comparison between a 1987 Grand National and a 2012 Regal GS:

http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline...d-national.html

Yes, the Grand National was quicker than the Regal GS.

We all expect old cars to handle poorly, but just how poorly is really a shock. The Grand National ran the slalom at 59.2 MPH and pulled 0.77 G on the skidpad. That's 10 MPH slower and 0.15 G less than the Regal GS. It also took nearly 40 feet longer to stop from 60 MPH.

Suspect braking and row-boat handling? 1980s refinment and crash-worthiness? But hey... you could hang your arm out the window. You're really saying you'd take a 1987 Buick Regal (Grand National being an exception) over a 2012 Regal or a 1987 Camaro IROC-Z over a 2012 Camaro SS? You hate yourself that much?

As I said, the Grand National was an exception... because the standard Buick Regal was such a hot car, right? From the era when Buick made non-geezermobiles:

Man, look at that stylish... hood ornament. Those simulated wire hubcaps and thin whitewalls? No grandpa details here! Buick 3.8L V6 with the 2 barrel? A rocketship by any standard! Don't forget about the half-vinyl top!

LOL, those cars were such POS. Their the reason that GM lost a generation to Toyota and Honda.

I loved 80's cars, I looked at a still in dealer wrapping 1987 I think Buick GNX a few years ago that had 400 miles on it. The doors had the nice cheap 80's GM rattle when you closed them. A modern Camaro is a space ship compared to this thing.

A modern one also does a few things neat they couldn't figure out well in the 70's and 80's.

1. Not rot out after 5 years. GM's of that vintage always, always rotted out the undersides of the doors.

2. Not have a [censored] tack on emissions system with a million feet of vacuum line that will leak.

3. They stop.

4. Interior bits actually fit!

But I guess wonky quality is a small price to pay for being able to hang that arm out the window!

 

[spasm3]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
Edmunds did a comparison between a 1987 Grand National and a 2012 Regal GS:

http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline...d-national.html

Yes, the Grand National was quicker than the Regal GS.

We all expect old cars to handle poorly, but just how poorly is really a shock. The Grand National ran the slalom at 59.2 MPH and pulled 0.77 G on the skidpad. That's 10 MPH slower and 0.15 G less than the Regal GS. It also took nearly 40 feet longer to stop from 60 MPH.

Suspect braking and row-boat handling? 1980s refinment and crash-worthiness? But hey... you could hang your arm out the window. You're really saying you'd take a 1987 Buick Regal (Grand National being an exception) over a 2012 Regal or a 1987 Camaro IROC-Z over a 2012 Camaro SS? You hate yourself that much?

As I said, the Grand National was an exception... because the standard Buick Regal was such a hot car, right? From the era when Buick made non-geezermobiles:

Man, look at that stylish... hood ornament. Those simulated wire hubcaps and thin whitewalls? No grandpa details here! Buick 3.8L V6 with the 2 barrel? A rocketship by any standard! Don't forget about the half-vinyl top!

LOL, those cars were such POS. Their the reason that GM lost a generation to Toyota and Honda.

I loved 80's cars, I looked at a still in dealer wrapping 1987 I think Buick GNX a few years ago that had 400 miles on it. The doors had the nice cheap 80's GM rattle when you closed them. A modern Camaro is a space ship compared to this thing.

A modern one also does a few things neat they couldn't figure out well in the 70's and 80's.

1. Not rot out after 5 years. GM's of that vintage always, always rotted out the undersides of the doors.

2. Not have a [censored] tack on emissions system with a million feet of vacuum line that will leak.

3. They stop.

4. Interior bits actually fit!

But I guess wonky quality is a small price to pay for being able to hang that arm out the window!


I agree that 2012 cars are better engineered than earlier. no argument there! buick just has lost style!!! Like i said go to the website click on all models and just look they all and i mean all look the same! Buick used to offer sporty models they had regals for years that looked sporty . the 60's and 70's offered the grand sport. 80's the t type. then geezer only models from the 90's up. Lacrosse, Verano, Regal , Encore all look identical other than size.

 

[GMBoy]

Originally Posted By: spasm3
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
Edmunds did a comparison between a 1987 Grand National and a 2012 Regal GS:

http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline...d-national.html

Yes, the Grand National was quicker than the Regal GS.

We all expect old cars to handle poorly, but just how poorly is really a shock. The Grand National ran the slalom at 59.2 MPH and pulled 0.77 G on the skidpad. That's 10 MPH slower and 0.15 G less than the Regal GS. It also took nearly 40 feet longer to stop from 60 MPH.

Suspect braking and row-boat handling? 1980s refinment and crash-worthiness? But hey... you could hang your arm out the window. You're really saying you'd take a 1987 Buick Regal (Grand National being an exception) over a 2012 Regal or a 1987 Camaro IROC-Z over a 2012 Camaro SS? You hate yourself that much?

As I said, the Grand National was an exception... because the standard Buick Regal was such a hot car, right? From the era when Buick made non-geezermobiles:

Man, look at that stylish... hood ornament. Those simulated wire hubcaps and thin whitewalls? No grandpa details here! Buick 3.8L V6 with the 2 barrel? A rocketship by any standard! Don't forget about the half-vinyl top!

LOL, those cars were such POS. Their the reason that GM lost a generation to Toyota and Honda.

I loved 80's cars, I looked at a still in dealer wrapping 1987 I think Buick GNX a few years ago that had 400 miles on it. The doors had the nice cheap 80's GM rattle when you closed them. A modern Camaro is a space ship compared to this thing.

A modern one also does a few things neat they couldn't figure out well in the 70's and 80's.

1. Not rot out after 5 years. GM's of that vintage always, always rotted out the undersides of the doors.

2. Not have a [censored] tack on emissions system with a million feet of vacuum line that will leak.

3. They stop.

4. Interior bits actually fit!

But I guess wonky quality is a small price to pay for being able to hang that arm out the window!


I agree that 2012 cars are better engineered than earlier. no argument there! buick just has lost style!!! Like i said go to the website click on all models and just look they all and i mean all look the same! Buick used to offer sporty models they had regals for years that looked sporty . the 60's and 70's offered the grand sport. 80's the t type. then geezer only models from the 90's up. Lacrosse, Verano, Regal , Encore all look identical other than size.



All car makes look the same now a days thru their line up (and many in years past too if you think about the idea is not new)...its part of thier "brand recognition".

I agree with you - and also miss the different looks of each model thru a brand but there were never many like that, every car maker had unique styling cues to themselves. I think Pontiac was the worst offender of "all looking alike cars" in its late days before being discontinued. I remember driving thru a Pontiac dealer lot one day and while driving down a line of cars you could barely tell the difference between a Bonnivile, Grand Prix, GTO, G6, and G3's...all has the same front design.

But let's not forget all the other makes that look the same in order to keep the brand imagine recognizable. Here are just 3 examples:

BMW - probably the originator of same styling thru the whole brand. Look at a vintage 2002 and a 2012 1,2,5 or 7 series..they look the same as far as styling cues such as the trade mark kidnet grills and such

Lincoln - all today's models share styling with the awful huge in your face grill styling (which I think is extremely ugly)

Ford - The latest models all have that huge front grill that extends over the headlights. Not bad looking, much better than the Lincolns.

Mercedes - Just like BMW..always had very close styling between models to be recognized as a MB.

HONDA - remember the 80's 90's Accords, Prelude etc all looked the same and today's models pretty much do as well.


I think Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Ford and Chrysler and others are doing pretty nice jobs identifying their brands with common styling cues.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
We toured the GM Arlington plant in Jr High (off season athletics had to take an occupational course) I saw a black Cutlass Salon just like that. Same wheels, no half vinyl top. Fell in love with that car but never could find one like it. I found a LOT of 3.8 Cutlass Supremes and a few "442s" with 307s and TH2004Rs but no sporty clean Salons.


Mine was built in Arlington, TX. In August of 1984. I believe it may have been one of the last RWD Calais models built. In 1984, the Cutlass Calais was the top of the line G-body Cutlass, and the Calais is the trim on which the Hurst/Olds was based. In 1985, the Calais name moved to the FWD N-body platform and the Salon became the top of the line G-body Cutlass. 1985 also saw the end of the Hurst/Olds and the re-introduction of the 442.

The only option my '84 Calais didn't have that I wish it did was the 200-4R transmission. Mine had the 200-C. It puked reverse gear before 100k miles (common) and I had to have it rebuilt. To cope with only three forward speeds, it had a 2.14:1 rear axle ratio from the factory. I swapped the axle for a posi-traction axle out of a similar year Grand Prix, and thought it was a 2.41:1, but I think it was actually a 2.29:1.

I also owned a 1987 Regal Limited for a brief time while in college. That one had the 200-4R and the optional 3.08:1 rear axle. It had the Olds 307 in it and I swapped that out for an Olds 403 out of a 1979 Regency 98. That car moved out pretty good, but it was a redneck wonder, with bad paint and loud exhaust. I kept my Olds cherry; she was mint.

I sold the Olds for $3500 back in 2001, and kept in touch with the new owners. They contacted me about 4 years ago about selling the car, and asked if I wanted it back. I said that I did, but they said they could take no less than $6000 for it, since that's what it appraised at. I told her that she and I both knew what she paid for it just a few years prior, and if she wanted to come at me with a fair price, I'd be waiting. I never did hear back.

 

[Rock_Hudstone]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer

LOL, those cars were such POS. Their the reason that GM lost a generation to Toyota and Honda.

I loved 80's cars, I looked at a still in dealer wrapping 1987 I think Buick GNX a few years ago that had 400 miles on it. The doors had the nice cheap 80's GM rattle when you closed them.

1. GM's of that vintage always, always rotted out the undersides of the doors.

But I guess wonky quality is a small price to pay for being able to hang that arm out the window!

You're just parroting conventional wisdom. Moreover, nobody is arguing there haven't been huge advancements in the ensuing years across all makes.

As for Hondas and Toyotas back then, they were beggining to rust when they got off the boat.

However, you are right about one thing, a modern Camaro is a lot like a space ship; the occupants sit low in the cramped capsule while peering out tiny windows.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Yeah, that's why Camaros sell like hot cakes! Talk about a parrot.

The Buick Regal turbo V-6 was strictly a result of bad blood, and normally would NEVER have been built. But it was rammed through.

And it was not exactly a handling or braking benchmark!

 

[GMBoy]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Yeah, that's why Camaros sell like hot cakes! Talk about a parrot.

The Buick Regal turbo V-6 was strictly a result of bad blood, and normally would NEVER have been built. But it was rammed through.

And it was not exactly a handling or braking benchmark!



True on the Regal Turbos. I own a mint 87 Grand National and really, handling isn't so bad. According to magazines of the day, it pulled .81g's. Not great, but darn good overall considering and with a nice ride. I love the way it rides and I accept it is not a sports car - wasn't meant to be. The sole purpose of the GN was to be bold and gnarly - like a 60/70's muscle car but faster, better equipped and with all the advancements the 80's had over the 60/70's. So, it is only natural that the 2000's bring even more better things to our autos.

The car in 1986/87 vintage was an amazing feat back then. Luxury, power (fasted production car 1986 and 87) and fuel econonmy that was until then unheard of.