1962 Buick Lesabre 4-dr 401cu. In. Wildcat Nailhead Motor on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Dear America, you don't need as much power as you think

I recently won a 0-20-mph drag race against a Chevrolet Volt. A day later I smoked a Tesla Model 3. “Um OK,” youÂ’re thinking, “that canÂ’t be that hard.” Well, except that the vehicle I was piloting featured a hybrid powertrain of a Bosch electric motor and 40-year-old human legs. ThatÂ’s right, I out accelerated automobiles on a bicycle. On another occasion, I found myself driving behind my wife in her 2023 Kia Niro EV. The specs say it accelerates from zero to 60 mph in 7.8 seconds, a time thatÂ’s six-tenths off the pace of KiaÂ’s rear-motor-only EV6, a vehicle IÂ’ve repeatedly read being described as “slow.” The Niro, therefore, must be extra-slow. And yet, as she turned left onto a highway onramp, she rocketed forward leaving me in a Mercedes-AMG C43 and every other car in the left turn lane in the distance. I share these anecdotes not to boast about my cycling ability, nor my wife having a lead foot. No no. IÂ’m crap and she really doesnÂ’t. Instead, I want to point out that most drivers accelerate very slowly. The notion of “bigger is better” will forever be engrained in the American psyche, but when it comes to horsepower largesse, todayÂ’s cars hilariously exceed both the expectations and driving habits of most drivers. Most car buyers just donÂ’t have a frame of reference when it comes to equating 0-60 times, output figures and the actual feeling of acceleration.   Eat my dust, Mr Volt! Now, we in the automotive-reviewing media absolutely share some of this blame. We like accelerating quickly and cars that accelerate quicker are bound to reap more positive reviews. At the very least, weÂ’re obligated to point out when a carÂ’s acceleration is slower than a certain competitor's or the segmentÂ’s average. However, just because Car A is slower than Car B doesnÂ’t make Car A slow. It makes it slower. For example, the dual-motor EV6 may be 2 full seconds quicker from 0-60 than the rear-motor model ­– a relatively massive difference – but barring a back-to-back drive or a wealth of comparative knowledge, itÂ’s laughable to think that the average driver could possibly deem the rear-motor version “slow.” Because it isnÂ’t. The near-universal use of turbocharging, the popularity of all-wheel-drive and increased proliferation of electric motors has resulted in this rapid drop in 0-60 times thatÂ’s outpacing customer expectations and driving habits.

J.D. Power customer survey of dealers counts Cadillac, Buick as big winners

Cadillac and Buick have taken the trophies in J.D. Power's latest Customer Service Index Study examining satisfaction with dealer service. Surveying more than 90,000 owners and lessees of 2009-2013 model-year cars, the study found that those with pre-paid maintenance packages were ten percent more likely to buy their next car from the same brand.
Dealer satisfaction scores have improved overall, Cadillac nabbed the luxury segment ahead of Audi and Lexus, taking the crown that Lexus held last year. Buick keeps the mass-market dealer satisfaction win in the family, finishing ahead of Volkswagen and last year's winner GMC. The study also found that service department use of tablets increased customer satisfaction, as did "best practices" like "providing helpful advice." Who knew?
You can find details on those and more findings in the press release below.

Junkyard Gem: 1978 Buick Skylark Sedan

Around the time that OPEC shut off the oil taps, The General realized that it was time to sell more small cars from GM divisions not previously known for such machines. The logical candidate for this project was the Chevrolet Nova, a rear-wheel-drive compact that shared much of its chassis design with the Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac Firebird. The Nova-based Pontiac Ventura came out in the 1971 model year, and the Buick and Oldsmobile Divisions began producing their own badge-engineered Nova siblings for 1973 (Cadillac was late to the party, but eventually created the Nova-based Seville for 1976). At first, the Buickized Nova got Apollo badges, but the better-known Skylark name was applied to these cars for the 1975 through 1979 model years. Today's Junkyard Gem is one of those Nova-based Skylarks, found in a Denver self-serve yard. From the 1964 through 1972 model years, the Skylark lived on the A-Body chassis and was sibling to the Chevrolet Chevelle/Malibu, Pontiac LeMans/Tempest/GTO, and Oldsmobile Cutlass/442. After the 1975-1979 rear-wheel-drive X-Body phase, the Skylark name then went onto the unrelated front-wheel-dive X-Body chassis developed for the Chevrolet Citation. It's a Nova, sure, but Buick made sure that it had a bit more swank than its Chevy counterpart. Checked seat fabric with big square buttons! The base engine in the '78 Skylark was the 3.8-liter Buick V6, rated at 110 horsepower. GM had invested in a new crankshaft design for this engine the year before, so it no longer had the "odd-fire" cut-down V8 crankshaft that shook the fillings out of so many drivers' teeth in earlier years. An assortment of low-compression V8s from Oldsmobile, Chevrolet, Pontiac, and Buick were available as optional equipment as well, eventually leading to the "Chevymobile" lawsuits of a few years later. The base transmission in this car was a three-speed manual (I'm not sure if you could still get a three-on-the-tree column-shift manual Skylark in 1978, but a three-on-the-floor manual was available for sure). The very last three-on-the-tree car Americans could buy was the '79 Nova and its Olds Omega/Pontiac Phoenix siblings, while the final three-on-the-floor cars were the '81 Malibu and siblings. This car has the optional three-speed automatic.