1967 Buick Riviera, Rare 430 Big Block, Hydraulics, Custom, Spoke Rims, Bagged on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Junkyard Gem: 1984 Buick Skyhawk Custom Sedan

Many laughed in 1982 when GM's Cadillac Division began selling the Cimarron, essentially a luxed-up Chevy Cavalier, at about twice the Cavalier's price. One rung below Cadillac on GM's Ladder of Success, the Buick Division got its own version of the Cavalier at the same time: the Skyhawk. Nobody laughed at the 1982-1989 Skyhawk's respectable sales figures. We saw an '85 Skyhawk coupe in a California boneyard last winter, and now here's an example of the sedan version in Colorado. This was the second generation of the Buick Skyhawk name, the first being applied to a Buick-ized version of the Chevrolet Monza during the 1975-1980 model years. That Skyhawk was available solely as a sleek two-door hatchback. This generation of Skyhawk could be purchased in coupe, sedan, hatchback (1986-1987 only) and wagon (1983-1989 only) form, with the coupe proving to be the most popular. For the 1984 model year, the base Skyhawk engine was the 2.0-liter pushrod four-cylinder from the Cavalier, rated at 86 horsepower and 110 pound-feet. If you opted for a five-speed manual or three-speed automatic transmission instead of the base four-on-the-floor manual, you could spend an extra 50 bucks (about 149 bucks in 2023 money) to get this higher-revving, Opel-designed/Brazilian-made 1.8-liter SOHC four-banger with 84 horsepower and 102 pound-feet. A turbocharged version of this engine with 150 horses was available on the Skyhawk T-Type. Buick was proud of both the overhead cam and the electronic fuel injection in this car, applying these badges to brag a bit. You'd have thought that a buyer sacrificing torque for a better-breathing engine would have selected a manual transmission, but such was not the case with this car. The three-speed TH125 slushbox cost $395, or about $1,179 after inflation. The cheapest '84 Skyhawk trim level was the Custom. The MSRP on this car was $7,345 ($21,922 now) before options. Its Chevy Cavalier sibling started at $6,214 ($18,546 today), while its Pontiac 2000 Sunbird and Olds Firenza counterparts were $6,791 and $7,293, respectively ($20,268 and $21,766 in 2023 dollars). Meanwhile, the King of J-Bodies, the Cadillac Cimarron, listed at $12,605 ($37,620 today) in 1984. That $7,345 sticker price didn't include plenty of features we now take for granted in new cars. If you wanted air conditioning in your new Skyhawk, as nearly every Buick buyer in 1984 did, the cost was $630 ($1,880 after inflation).

2018 Buick Regal TourX First Drive Review | Pop the champagne, it's another wagon!

As a newborn member of an endangered species, we should probably pop open the Dom to fete the arrival of the 2018 Buick Regal TourX. It's a wagon, after all, and if there's anything we automotive writers have been clamoring for is more wagons. "Forget those SUVs," we've implored. "This wagon over here is better! Just as much cargo space, better to drive! And have you seen it in brown?" Well, it seems like our collective proselytizing is starting to pay off, or perhaps far more likely, consumer tastes are shifting a bit to appreciate the wagon. Sure, they need to be lifted a bit and sport plastic fender flares to add a wee bit of SUV-ish flavor, but who the hell cares? Beggars, choosers, etc. It's a wagon, and we should be happy it's here. And we are, the Regal TourX is a pretty good one that thankfully offers more than just its mere existence. It especially delivers on the space front, which is refreshing since most of today's wagons are not as cargo friendly as the collective "we" would like to admit. An Audi Q5 regrettably does have more cargo space than an Audi A4 Allroad. Yet, the TourX has more than both – considerably more in fact, coming in at a certifiably huge 73.5 cubic feet of maximum space. The difference is palpable between it and the 53.5-cubic-foot Allroad, which Buick considers the TourX's closest competitor. As the below video (somewhat) demonstrates, I was able to cram 12 Patagonia duffle bags into the Allroad, filling up most of the cabin. The same amount in the TourX left tons of residual space, you could still see out the back and loading it all in didn't require a degree in Advanced Tetris. There's also a far more useful amount of space with the back seat raised (32.7 vs. 24.2). That area is especially lengthy, and with the large rear quarter windows and reasonably square roofline, it should be a good choice for dog owners. There's no built-in dog net behind the back seat as you'll find in the Allroad and BMW 3 Series wagon (you'd have to go the aftermarket route), but your four-legged buddy should at least appreciate the lower liftover/jump-aboard height. Which brings us to the next wagon benefit: the lower roof height. According to Buick's marketing folks, people who buy off-roadish wagons like the Regal TourX are far more likely to actually live the outdoorsy active lifestyles the owners of SUVs usually only envision for themselves.

Kia Telluride vs Buick Enclave Luggage Test | What actually fits behind that third row?

So, you want to buy a three-row crossover. Before plunking down $40,000 on a new sport utility vehicle, might we dissuade you with the prospect of minivan ownership? The Pacifica Hybrid, perhaps ... no? Fine. Good thing crossovers (especially the Telluride and comparable Palisade) are so nice to drive these days. We’ll assume you want the big three-row crossover, as you intend to seat folks in all three rows. Unfortunately, raising that third row reduces the luggage area from cavernous to crawl space. ItÂ’s rather devastating from a pure numbers perspective to the two models we have today. The 2019 Buick Enclave goes from a monstrous 58 cubic-feet with the second-row in place down to 23.6 cubic-feet (which along with the nearly identical 2020 Chevrolet Traverse is still best-in-class). Meanwhile, the 2020 Kia Telluride takes a similar hit, going from 46 cubic-feet down to 21 cubic-feet. Just looking at the numbers, it would seem that the EnclaveÂ’s big advantage all but disappears with the third row up, boasting just 2.6 cubic-feet of storage more than the Telluride. But as West Coast Editor James Riswick has discovered in the numerous luggage tests he's conducted, the numbers don't always tell the whole story. Let's see how the Enclave and Telluride compare when you actually put things inside.  Boom. The Enclave swallows all of the test luggage we have for it without any fuss. The distance between the back of the seats to the hatch opening is enough to fit our full-size suitcase horizontally, making it easy to stack every other bag around it. It even fits below the seatbacks, so the driver will have an uninhibited view out the rear of the vehicle.  At our Michigan HQ, our test luggage consists of the following pieces: 28-inch upright suitcase, 24-inch upright suitcase, 19-inch upright suitcase, two small tote bags and one backpack. ItÂ’s likely enough luggage for a quick weekend getaway with the family, given there are no strollers involved. As we attempted to pack it all into the Telluride, weÂ’re glad we didnÂ’t have anything else. The loss of 2.6 cubic-feet of space was indeed felt much harder than what it looks like on paper. We knew we were in trouble when the 28-inch suitcase didnÂ’t fit along the floor as it did so neatly in the Enclave. We were forced to stack it up next to the rear seats, which left it sitting rather tall back there. As a result, the other suitcases didnÂ’t have a neat or convenient place to go.