Talk:Buick Roadmaster

Automobiles Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I removed a reference to the supposed "slaughter of 1997", as the article created on that subject was previously deleted as unverifiable material. -Colin Kimbrell 15:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plant retooling[edit]

Wasn't the primary reason for GM dropping the b-body platform the need to increase truck/SUV capacity? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.64.53.196 (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2006

Yes, pretty much. --Sable232 04:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B-body/Dbody[edit]

Note: This line: "...in 1993, the newly-redesigned Cadillac Fleetwood was the same car as the Roadmaster and Caprice sedans--except that it featured chrome-plated front and rear bumpers and was much more expensive." is incorrect in several regards. The Fleetwoods had a completely restyled doghouse, side panels and molding, rear quarters/trunk, were six inches longer(wheelbase, overall 10 inches) and were designated "D body" as a result. They also shared almost no interior parts with either the Caprice/Impala or the Roadmaster. Even the PCM tuning is different once the LT1 engine was introduced in '94.

The line either needs modified accordingly(which I'll do if I ever remember my password) or reduced to a simple mention of the FWB with link.

FMChimera(also note I moved this from plant retooling and created a new section since putting it under plant retooling was dumb on my part) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.82.140 (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generations Don't Work Well[edit]

While its nice to have the generations and photos, it seems to me if they're worth listing they're worth saying something about. Before this change, this was a short concise article. Now its photos and charts with a very small percentage of prose.

If the generation information is to remain, there should be enough prose about each to fill up the section. I am not capable of contributing this, but recommend that until there's something to say about each generation other than some photos and a chart, thE generations should be removed from the article. Bradkay (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see any problem with removing the generation sections. They can always be added back when information is provided. Right now the article is basically unreadable. --Leivick (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either remove them all (save for 1991-1996 which is large enough) or they will have to be expanded with enough material.

The extra image below the lead infobox needs to go too, it goes against the basic article layout and it throws the table of contents off. --Sable232 (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, revert (or quickly add a whole lot of content). 1991-1996 should be kept. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a sample of what could be done with this entry. It's a lot of hard work to collect the data and organize it only to others totally undo that work. If this is unsuitable I shall continue no more. After all I'm not being paid to write entire encyclopedic entries. You're welcome to the vapidness. Sadowski (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I've done it again. I switched the lead image to a Buick displaying the first Riviera hardtop, the first VentiPorts, and the first Sweepspear. Oh God, I guess I just like Buick Roadmaster too much. So shoot me. Sadowski (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buick Lucerne[edit]

I believe that the V8 version is the direct replacement for the Roadmaster, as both are full-size cars. 166.137.191.30 (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fender Vents[edit]

Present text re Ventiports says:

The idea for VentiPorts grew out of a modification Buick styling chief Ned Nickles had added to his own 1948 Roadmaster. He had installed four amber lights on each side of his car’s hood wired to the distributor so as to flash on and off as each piston fired simulating the flames from the exhaust stack of a fighter airplane.

I find that paragraph hard to believe. Even if each porthole light was controlled by only one cylinder, at an engine speed of 1000 RPM that light would be flashing on and off 500 times per minute, or just over 8 times a second. I doubt if anyone could notice incandescent bulbs "flashing" at that high a rate.

And just where on the distributor would he have "wired" those bulbs? Certainly not off the spark plug terminals, but that's the only place on a distributor that gets energized as "each piston fired".

Jeff Wisnia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javogadro1 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Roadmonster" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Roadmonster. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 8#Roadmonster until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense in lede[edit]

Currently it says “The Roadmaster is remplaced by Invicta,LeSabre,Electra,Century and the famous Park Avenue The period is 1959-1990”. I have no idea what it's trying to say… Mr Larrington (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]