
oldsmobile-digest     Tuesday, February 24 2004     Volume 01 : Number 4791



Re: Stuck distributor (really X%#$ stuck!)
Re: will my project car be illegal?
Stuck Distributor
Re: REALLY bad parts car...
Re: QQ tags?  was Re: will my project car be illegal?
Re: will my project car be illegal?
RE: 442 is painted - Pictures?????
RE:  REALLY bad parts car...
RE: will my project car be illegal?
Re: What is a muscle car? was: muscle cars handling
Re: seatbelts
Re: What is a muscle car? was: muscle cars handling
Re: Friction and gravity
RE: Stuck distributor (really X%#$ stuck!)
RE: What is a muscle car? was: muscle cars handling
Re:Re: What is a muscle car? was: muscle cars handling
442 spotted in London
Galon-liters
Re: Re:Re: What is a muscle car? was: muscle cars handling
shake?
RE: Galon-liters
Re: What is a muscle car? was: muscle cars handling
RE: seatbelts
Re: Galon-liters
Re: shake?
Re: will my project car be illegal?
Re: seatbelts

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 05:08:45 +0000
From: Steve Harrison <k0xp@dandy.net>
Subject: Re: Stuck distributor (really X%#$ stuck!)

At 09:44 PM 2/23/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>That's why the oil pump drive shaft works as a great distributor removing
>punch.

I figgered that driveshaft could shatter. But I also figgered the
driveshaft might not be long enough to pound on, especially with a 2x4. And
it'd dig deeply into the 2x4 anyhow. Whatever works, of course.....  ;o\

>> This story is making me strongly consider very-lightly sanding down my
>> distributor housing so it's not as tight.
>
>
>That could alter the radius clearance relationship between the distributor
>gear and the cam gear. Be very careful doing that.

Was only thinking maybe 1 thousandths or less, just enough to make sure
it's able to rotate freely and so not likely to get stuck later.

>> And, for that matter, the
>> balancer hub. Poncho balancers simply slide on the crank snot and I've
>> never heard of one coming loose; can't see why an Olds balancer/crank snot
>> would be any different, so why are they so tight to begin with??
>
>
>Ahhhhh, recently the 425 harmonic balancer from the engine I just stripped
>came right off in my hands. The 330 crank hubs I've been pulling in the
>you-pull-it yard looking for good 330 forged cranks have also been coming
>right off in my hands.
>
>I have noticed an issue with the square crank key being rough and jamming an
>Olds balancer. That could be most of the problem.

I'm glad to hear that, because most folks have talked about how difficult
it's been for them to get theirs off and then back on.

SteveH

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 05:22:24 -0500
From: John Kelsey <ribspot@pop4.net>
Subject: Re: will my project car be illegal?

King V wrote:

> All,
> 
> 	This is probably New Jersey specific, but I was wondering.
> 
> 	I am going to be putting a 1972 455 into my 1979 Cutlass Calais.  By the
> time this is done, the car will be registered with Historic plates (ie: QQ
> plates).
> 
> 	Now, I know that my car will be exempt from inspection with the QQ plates,
> and the vehicle is thus limited-use with those plates.  I had thus assumed
> that it would not be a problem to put the older motor in.
> 
> 	The 1972 engine does not have an EGR valve, and I had not originally
> planned on putting catalytic converters on it.
> 
> 	The latter wouldn't bother me much.  If I have to, I'll put catalysts on
> it.  But is simply having the older engine in there illegal?  Would having
> no EGR be illegal?
> 
> 	I talked to someone today, and he said he'd find out what he could for me.
>  He did say he wasn't sure, but thought that technically, if a police
> officer decided to do an "on-the-spot" inspection, I could possibly be
> cited for tampering violations.  And, he said, those fines are unpleasantly
> high.
> 
> 
> 	Anyone know for sure?
> 
> 
> 	- Joe Vahabzadeh
> 
> 
Joe
   I can only speak for Ohio e-check regs. The car must pass according 
to the VIN number doesn't matter what engine is in it. IE a 65 engine in 
a 75 car must pass 75 emissions. Of course nothing over 25 years has to 
pass anything. I run historic plates all the time and have never been 
stopped. A cop would have to be really bored to even bother with the 
kind of things you are talking about. I think it would only happen if 
there was some other reason to stop you and an attitude developed giving 
the cop a reason to "get" you
best of luck
John Kelsey
Dayton Ohio

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 07:13:36 -0500
From: "Paul Tumolo" <ptumolo@comcast.net>
Subject: Stuck Distributor

This has never failed me:

PB Blaster - heat - PB Blaster - heat - PB Blaster

Do this over a couple of days. It will pop right out.

BTW, this is a case of galvanic corrosion with 2 very dissimialar
metals. ALWAYS use Neevr Seeze upon reassembly.

Paul Tumolo
1970 442 Hardtop
OCA # 31967

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:05:18 -0500
From: "ron fama" <77w30442@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: REALLY bad parts car...

  thay could of gave it a burriel at least.
  even the crows dont see anything worth while
  ron
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: "Steve Harrison" <k0xp@dandy.net>
  To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
  Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 10:03 PM
  Subject: Re: REALLY bad parts car...


  > At 07:20 PM 2/23/2004 -0500, you wrote:
  > >  that one is dead
  > >  ron
  > 
  > It looks like someone even took its organ-donor pledge card  ;o(((((((((
  > 
  > 

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:04:20 -0500
From: "ron fama" <77w30442@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: QQ tags?  was Re: will my project car be illegal?

  nj also does road side inspections ,been doing them for years, i got busted for no cats in 1992.
the car had a valid state inspection sticker from nj put i was pulled into a line and the mirror
revealed no cats, ticketed and went to court i beat it because a state not a private facility
inspected it. i did install a set of chrysler cats hollowed out and welded.  the bitch i had is it
passed the 2500 rpm test  everytime with out cats.
  as far as what belongs where under the hood the egr valve is the i common thing most cars had.
scrape the emissions decal. because no inspector knows every device that is supposed to be there any
way
  ron
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: "King V" <king_v@mindless.com>
  To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
  Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 11:28 PM
  Subject: QQ tags? was Re: will my project car be illegal?


  > At 10:46 PM 02/23/2004 -0500, Stephen wrote:
  > >
  > >I also doubt any cop would do an "on-the-spot" inspection for something
  > >that specific.  So cops can't tell an Oldsmobile from a Buick, so which
  > >are going to know _exactly_ what year cars had EGRs.  The only things cops
  > >"inspect" are things visible while you are driving... lights,
  > >droopy exhaust, etc.
  >
  > Or they'll run the plates on really UGLY cars . . . and oops, my
  > registration was 2 weeks expired!  Damn... (that happened about 2 years ago).
  >
  > >
  > >On the other hand, NJ is talking of putting up photo sniffers to look for
  > >excessive polluters.  Also, there are roving inspection stations... but
  > >I'd think the Historic plates would make them look elsewhere.
  > >
  >
  > Actually, I have no fear of this, as the 1972 Olds 98 which will be
  > donating the motor has, despite the bad carburetor, passed emissions easily
  > within 1975-1980 requirements.
  >
  > But I'm just concerned for the potential "Hah, you're busted, that's
  > $10,000 per violation" scenario.  Given the clean condition and limited use
  > the car will see, I figure it's unlikely at best, but still unnerves me.
  >
  >
  > >Of course, I would just run it through a private garage... they miss all
  > >sorts of things.  Like 403's.
  > >
  > >I realize the QQ tags are limited use, but from the people I talk to,
  > >there is little enforcement.  Any thoughts on that?
  >
  > Not sure about it.  In my friend's 1970 Challenger convertible, we were at
  > a crawl on a highway headed to the shore.  Cop was surveying things, and
  > then walked right up to us . . needless to say, this made us a bit nervous,
  > and we were wondering exactly what you are.
  >
  > Then he said, "Nice car.  What year?"
  >
  > On the way home, we broke down, and while pushing another officer stopped.
  > He never even asked for paperwork, just sort of asked us what was going on,
  > and suggested that we push the car only to a side area a few feet up rather
  > than the 1/2 mile or so we were planning to a friend's house.
  >
  > >
  > >Also, I haven't gotten a straight answer from MVS on this... do you need
  > >collector's insurance on your car to get Historic plates?
  >
  > I don't recall that being on the form..... I only did this a year or so ago
  > for my 1972 98 and don't think it was a requirement.  But I already had
  > collector's insurance.  I think I have another QQ-plate form somewhere
  > downstairs though (gotta register the 1979 as a QQ).... if I find it, I'll
  > see if there's any notation on it about that.
  >
  >
  > - Joe Vahabzadeh
  >
  >

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:07:53 -0500
From: "ron fama" <77w30442@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: will my project car be illegal?

  go modified  registration, all you need is to retain the cats
  not as many limitations as historic
  contact dmv for more info
  ron
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: "King V" <king_v@mindless.com>
  To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
  Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 9:58 PM
  Subject: will my project car be illegal?


  > All,
  > 
  > This is probably New Jersey specific, but I was wondering.
  > 
  > I am going to be putting a 1972 455 into my 1979 Cutlass Calais.  By the
  > time this is done, the car will be registered with Historic plates (ie: QQ
  > plates).
  > 
  > Now, I know that my car will be exempt from inspection with the QQ plates,
  > and the vehicle is thus limited-use with those plates.  I had thus assumed
  > that it would not be a problem to put the older motor in.
  > 
  > The 1972 engine does not have an EGR valve, and I had not originally
  > planned on putting catalytic converters on it.
  > 
  > The latter wouldn't bother me much.  If I have to, I'll put catalysts on
  > it.  But is simply having the older engine in there illegal?  Would having
  > no EGR be illegal?
  > 
  > I talked to someone today, and he said he'd find out what he could for me.
  >  He did say he wasn't sure, but thought that technically, if a police
  > officer decided to do an "on-the-spot" inspection, I could possibly be
  > cited for tampering violations.  And, he said, those fines are unpleasantly
  > high.
  > 
  > 
  > Anyone know for sure?
  > 
  > 
  > - Joe Vahabzadeh
  > 

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 07:15:05 -0700
From: Joe & Gloria Varley <carcouple@cox.net>
Subject: RE: 442 is painted - Pictures?????

I should have the car together in a couple weeks, and will post some pics 
then.

Joe Varley

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 07:18:06 -0700
From: Joe & Gloria Varley <carcouple@cox.net>
Subject: RE:  REALLY bad parts car...

Yep.  That's why they are called JUNKyards.

Joe Varley

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:52:10 +0000
From: "Andrew C. Green" <acg_o@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: will my project car be illegal?

>The latter wouldn't bother me much.  If I have to, I'll put catalysts
>on it.  But is simply having the older engine in there illegal? Would 
>having no EGR be illegal?

All our advice is certainly worth what you're paying for it,  :-)  but I 
don't think it's really a question of which gadgets are illegal on what car, 
when you're talking about a vehicle as old as a '79 -- first the inspectors 
need to figure out what _should_ be on the car in the first place, and I 
think it's safe to say that no one will have documentation for that. What's 
more relevant is whether the car will pass an emissions test. If you're 
exempt from that, you're all but home free.

Putting a convertor (or two) on isn't going to hurt your engine; their 
backpressure will be negligible and they _will_ clean up your emissions, 
plus you won't smell like a cheap lawnmower, but I wouldn't go to the 
trouble of bending pipes and installing convertors unless the inspectors 
tell you that you have to install them.

>I talked to someone today, and he said he'd find out what he could
>for me. He did say he wasn't sure, but thought that technically, if
>a police officer decided to do an "on-the-spot" inspection, I could
>possibly be cited for tampering violations.

1) You can't exactly "tamper" with devices that weren't on the 1972 
powertrain to begin with.

2) To even notice that the car has no convertors would require getting down 
on hands and knees and peering under the car. When was the last time you saw 
a roadside cop doing that?

- -- Andy

_________________________________________________________________
Stay informed on Election 2004 and the race to Super Tuesday. 
http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:11:14 +0000
From: "Andrew C. Green" <acg_o@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: What is a muscle car? was: muscle cars handling

>>as a kid growing up in Texas, I knew for a fact that a barrel
>>of oil was 42 gallons :)
>
>DANG.... you mean that somewhere in the world, someone, somewhere,
>has a BIGGER barrel of oil than Texans do????  ===================8-O

This is probably a bad time to mention this but yes, the Imperial gallon in 
England is about a fifth larger than the American gallon.

- -- Andy (ducking while the Revolutionary War breaks out all over again :-)

_________________________________________________________________
Store more e-mails with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage – 4 plans to choose from! 
http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:34:48 -0600
From: Kevin Wright <krwright@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: seatbelts

On Feb 23, 2004, at 5:39 AM, oldsmobile-digest wrote:

> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:49:59 -0500
> From: Joe Vitek <joevitek@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: seatbelts
>
> Andrew Geeting wrote:
>
>>> From what I understand, a 5pt harness is not DOT approved and you 
>>> can be
>> ticketed for wearing one.
>
> Hmmm, now that is a good point. When I get the '81 CS prepared for 
> road racing
> use for the Silver State Challenge, it will have a 'cage and 5 point 
> harnesses
> for both front seat occupants. I want to be able to drive it on the 
> street
> with this setup, but don't want to be ticketed every time I drive out 
> of New
> Hampshire. Does anyone know for sure about what Andrew stated above or 
> where
> any info on this can be found? New Hampshire doesn't have a seatbelt 
> law for
> adults, so no problem there for me. BUT, when I drive into Maine, 
> Vermont or
> Mass, I don't want to be hassled.

Schroth (pronounced "shrote") harnesses are DOT-legal.
http://www.soloracer.com/harnschrothfaq.html

>
On digest mode, so I'm a little slow...

Kevin Wright                                         
krwright@sbcglobal.net
Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX                             
http://www.wankel.net/~krwright/cars/olds/70Olds.html

'71 Cutlass S for sale, less engine and trans: 
http://www.wankel.net/~krwright/cars/olds71_cutlass.html

Snoopy: 1970 Oldsmobile Cutlass S Sports Coupe - It wants to be a W-31! 
And have EFI, 4-wheel discs, a 6-speed, a turbo or two... :)
...and a '71 Holiday Coupe less engine/transmission for sale - it'll be 
parts if someone doesn't buy it!

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:37:32 -0300
From: "Tour Op & Travel Agency Trade 2000" <travelchile@manquehue.net>
Subject: Re: What is a muscle car? was: muscle cars handling

BTW guys, when you talk about mpg, how many liters has the galon - 3.84?
rgds
Matt
> >has a BIGGER barrel of oil than Texans do????  ===================8-O
>
> This is probably a bad time to mention this but yes, the Imperial gallon
in
> England is about a fifth larger than the American gallon.
>
> -- Andy (ducking while the Revolutionary War breaks out all over again :-)

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:45:47 -0600
From: Kevin Wright <krwright@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Friction and gravity

On Feb 23, 2004, at 5:39 AM, oldsmobile-digest wrote:

> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 11:04:05 -0500
> From: "Christopher Witt" <rocketscience442@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Friction and gravity
>
> And, actually, the bigger cars do hold the road better (coefficient of
> friction is proportional to weight, isn't it?), at least until inertia
> takes over.
> But that was then. Things have changed.
>
> Kevin Wright                                krwright@sbcglobal.net
> Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX
> ==================
> Technically, the friction coefficient stays the same for a give tire 
> and
> road surface, regardless of weight applied. However, the traction/ 
> steering
> force available by virtue of that c.o.f. _is_ proportional to the 
> weight
> applied. Friction force is in fact the product of the c.o.f. and the
> "normal" force- what we would call the weight [though there is of 
> course
> more to it than that]. Then again, as you surmised, you also NEED more
> traction to steer/ accelerate a greater mass at the same rate. So, what
> benefit a large barge receives from increased weight is stolen right 
> back
> when you need to accelerate [including all variations thereof- such as
> change direction, decelerate, etc.].

Right, that's what I meant to say. COF is constant for a particular 
material - duh! :)
"It holds the road" was more about the perception of solidity than 
anything else, I think.
I love the way my Cutlass feels -  it feels solid, but there's no 
mistaking it for my little RX-7, either. I can throw that little guy 
all over, it's quite nimble.
>
> The std test to establish the c.o.f for a given pair of materials, as I
> recall from Physics classes, is to place a weight with a bottom surface
> composed of material A on a flat surface of material B, then gradually 
> lift
> one end of the plate until the block begins to move. The tangent of the
> angle of inclination is the static c.o.f  for that material pair. The 
> weight
> and surface area of the block are [more or less] inconsequential. 
> Therefore,
> 2 cars, wearing the same [type rubber] tires, but weighing differently 
> by
> say a factor of 2, on the same surface, would theoretically  break 
> free of
> that surface at the same angle of inclination. I suspect that surface 
> area,
> in real life dynamic scenarios on the cutting edge of traction, does 
> indeed
> factor in, which would be why bigger tires are used, to get more 
> traction,
> though the physics of STATIC friction assert that the area of the 
> contact
> patch is mathematically irrelevant. [You know how they lie, though].

That one caught my attention in Physics as well. If it doesn't matter, 
then why do we buy wider tires, right?
My theory is this - usually, when they're talking about CO of static 
friction, they're talking about smooth surfaces on both materials. 
Roads aren't smooth - far from it. I believe that what happens is that 
the larger contact patch makes it more likely that the two materials 
are actually in contact to generate the friction.
That's my feeling, anyway. I'm definitely not a Physics Ph.d or a tire 
design engineer.
>
> I know things have changed. For instance- gravity is a lot stronger 
> now than
> it was like 20 years ago. It takes me a lot more effort, for example, 
> to
> carwl out from under a dash now than it did then. :-)
>
> Must be stronger gravity. Yeah.

That's what it feels like to me. :P
> - -----------------------
> Chris Witt
> 1303 W. Miller Rd.
> Lansing MI 48911

On digest mode, so I'm a little slow...

Kevin Wright                                         
krwright@sbcglobal.net
Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX                             
http://www.wankel.net/~krwright/cars/olds/70Olds.html

'71 Cutlass S for sale, less engine and trans: 
http://www.wankel.net/~krwright/cars/olds71_cutlass.html

Snoopy: 1970 Oldsmobile Cutlass S Sports Coupe - It wants to be a W-31! 
And have EFI, 4-wheel discs, a 6-speed, a turbo or two... :)
...and a '71 Holiday Coupe less engine/transmission for sale - it'll be 
parts if someone doesn't buy it!

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:53:22 -0600
From: "Ian Dixon" <IDixon@sbrc.ca>
Subject: RE: Stuck distributor (really X%#$ stuck!)

  remove oil pump  and drive ise a long thin punch but a solid  name
brand get a good size hammer
and let the fun begin.
  method 2  remove oil pump and drive  remove whats left of the shaft if
still in there take chisle
and crack  rest od housing in 4 peaces and and remove
  ron
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  > The cam spins nicely on its bearings, and I can see the dist gear
  > meshing and turning with the cam gear with no effort. Try as I might
I
  > cannot move that distributor stub.  How the H&LL I am going to get
this
  > thing out.  I can't seem to get the cam out either (travels about an
  > inch forward), I guess thats due to the distributor.
  
All,

I removed the pan and oil pump (plus some kind of sheet metal plate at
the base of the pump) - everything came off without a whimper. The oil
pump drive shaft came out perfectly (it looks like new, and has a round
retainer on the bottom to provide right depth location in the
distributor base I suppose).  The dist gear was loose, and flopping
around.  I took that out (around the crank and rods), and then the
original camshaft.

(Also - It's the first time I've seen a forged factory Olds crank.  It's
gorgeous :)))).  I checked a few main bearings for laughs - they're in
great shape too.  Its fair to say that I love working on these old
engines - troubles with 'em notwithstanding.

As far as the dist goes - the only thing left in there was the alu
housing.  I could drive it out, but will need some kind of round steel
or alu shim to transfer the force.  Or I could heat cycle/lube, or
chisel it out.  Will try the first method tonight - with very mild force
- - to see if it budges.   Thanks to everyone for reminding me of the
tried and true methods.

Ian

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:54:51 -0600
From: "Ian Dixon" <IDixon@sbrc.ca>
Subject: RE: What is a muscle car? was: muscle cars handling

Uh, which gallon?
Ian

- -----Original Message-----
From: oldsmobile-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [mailto:oldsmobile- BTW guys, when
you talk about mpg, how many liters has the galon - 3.84?
rgds
Matt

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:04:01 -0500
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Am=E9nagement_Forestier_Vertech_inc.?= <vertech@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re:Re: What is a muscle car? was: muscle cars handling

Hi Matt,

1 Gal. = 3,79 liters
Here's a simple webpage with almost every converting tables you may need...
http://www.ex.ac.uk/trol/scol/index.htm

And another webpage I found regarding automotive calculators :
http://www.csgnetwork.com/automotiveconverters.html

Keep on posting ! !


Yves Lafreniere
vertech@sympatico.ca
La Tuque, Quebec, CA
1976 Delta 88 [455]



> BTW guys, when you talk about mpg, how many liters has the galon - 3.84?
> rgds
> Matt
> > >has a BIGGER barrel of oil than Texans do????  ===================8-O
> >
> > This is probably a bad time to mention this but yes, the Imperial gallon
> in
> > England is about a fifth larger than the American gallon.
> >
> > -- Andy (ducking while the Revolutionary War breaks out all over again
:-)
>

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 08:09:34 -0800 (PST)
From: chris smetana <grp442@yahoo.com>
Subject: 442 spotted in London

- --0-582978713-1077638974=:61867
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

So I got back yesterday from a little trip across the pond.  7 days in Ireland and a few in London.  Sunday I was walking across Tower Bridge doing the quintessential touristy stuff and not paying attention to where I was walking.  When I turn to check and make sure nothing is going to run into me and then I turn quickly to the left and there it goes across the bridge.  The 442 lettering on the door from I'm guessing a 76 442.  I remember it was brown, but it happened so fast and I was SOOOO shocked to see a car like that I was dumbfounded.  I'm assuming it was standard LH drive and wasn't coverted but it was cool nonetheless.  And for those wondering, there was an 80 or so Buick Regal parked on the street my hotel was on.  Also saw a Caprice Classic wagon with woodgrain, say mid 80s, in Dublin, Ireland.  All amongst a bunch of BMW, Mercedes, Audi and the regular SMALL cars over there.  Also an old XKE Jag convert a few Ferrari's and some really cool small sporty 2 seat Lotus cars. 
 They almost looked like kit cars.
 
Chris
grp442@yahoo.com


- ---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
- --0-582978713-1077638974=:61867
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<DIV>So I got back yesterday from a little trip across the pond.&nbsp; 7 days in Ireland and a few in London.&nbsp; Sunday I was walking across Tower Bridge doing the quintessential touristy stuff and not paying attention to where I was walking.&nbsp; When I turn to check and make sure nothing is going to run into me and then I turn quickly to the left and there it goes across the bridge.&nbsp; The 442 lettering on the door from I'm guessing a 76 442.&nbsp; I remember it was brown, but it happened so fast and I was SOOOO shocked to see a car like that I was dumbfounded.&nbsp; I'm assuming it was standard LH drive and wasn't coverted but it was cool nonetheless.&nbsp; And for those wondering, there was an 80 or so Buick Regal parked on the street my hotel was on.&nbsp; Also saw a Caprice Classic wagon with woodgrain, say mid 80s, in Dublin, Ireland.&nbsp; All amongst a&nbsp;bunch of BMW, Mercedes, Audi and the regular SMALL cars over there.&nbsp; Also an old XKE Jag convert a few
 Ferrari's and some really cool small sporty 2 seat Lotus cars.&nbsp; They almost looked like kit cars.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Chris</DIV>
<DIV><A href="mailto:grp442@yahoo.com">grp442@yahoo.com</A></DIV><p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=21260/*http://photos.yahoo.com">New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing</a>
- --0-582978713-1077638974=:61867--

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:18:47 -0300
From: "Tour Op & Travel Agency Trade 2000" <travelchile@manquehue.net>
Subject: Galon-liters

Well, just the galon you pour to your gas reservoir... I use liters all my
life...
Matt
- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ian Dixon" <IDixon@sbrc.ca>
To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 12:54 PM
Subject: RE: What is a muscle car? was: muscle cars handling


> Uh, which gallon?
> Ian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: oldsmobile-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [mailto:oldsmobile- BTW guys, when
> you talk about mpg, how many liters has the galon - 3.84?
> rgds
> Matt
>

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:22:29 -0300
From: "Tour Op & Travel Agency Trade 2000" <travelchile@manquehue.net>
Subject: Re: Re:Re: What is a muscle car? was: muscle cars handling

HA! Merci beaucoup pour cette information bien interressante!
Quelle domage que votre charmant accent quebecqois ne passe pas par
internet! J'adore ecouter les "Canadziens" parler francais.
I don't know why I thought it was 3.84l... must be an inglish measure?
rgds
Matt Matias Mathieu Maciej L. Raniewicz

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Aménagement Forestier Vertech inc." <vertech@sympatico.ca>
To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 1:04 PM
Subject: Re:Re: What is a muscle car? was: muscle cars handling


> Hi Matt,
>
> 1 Gal. = 3,79 liters
> Here's a simple webpage with almost every converting tables you may
need...
> http://www.ex.ac.uk/trol/scol/index.htm
>
> And another webpage I found regarding automotive calculators :
> http://www.csgnetwork.com/automotiveconverters.html
>
> Keep on posting ! !
>
>
> Yves Lafreniere
> vertech@sympatico.ca
> La Tuque, Quebec, CA
> 1976 Delta 88 [455]
>
>
>
> > BTW guys, when you talk about mpg, how many liters has the galon - 3.84?
> > rgds
> > Matt
> > > >has a BIGGER barrel of oil than Texans do????  ===================8-O
> > >
> > > This is probably a bad time to mention this but yes, the Imperial
gallon
> > in
> > > England is about a fifth larger than the American gallon.
> > >
> > > -- Andy (ducking while the Revolutionary War breaks out all over again
> :-)
> >
>
>

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:47:32 -0500
From: "JOHN ORR" <jorr@paylessequipment.com>
Subject: shake?

  Hey List,
    Last week-end I did the auto to 4 speed swap in my 67 cutlass supreme, I
now
have a pretty good shake going on. It begains around 2 grand and levels out
a little
at higher rpm.
    Here is what I have.....   some will remember my questions in the past
about H.B.
for the 330 and 350's... I have a 330 crank and it is set up for manual
tranns. it is a
350 block from a 72, 7a heads 4 barrel set up. So my question is what should
I look for as to why it should be shaking after the swap, I would like to
think that it
needs a carb and spark plugs, the car has been setting in a warehouse, and
only driven in and out for the last year or so.
    Any help would be great.
thanks
john
67 cutlass supreme...

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:56:10 -0600
From: "Ian Dixon" <IDixon@sbrc.ca>
Subject: RE: Galon-liters

I'm just being a smartass Matt.  If I'm right the Canadian gallon was
the Imperial gallon, and as such was a little bigger than the US gallon.
I know now you refer to the US gallon. We've used liters in Canada for
about 2 decades now.  I'll shutup now.
Ian


Well, just the galon you pour to your gas reservoir... I use liters all
my
life...
Matt
- ----- Original Message ----- 
@chebucto.ns.ca [mailto:oldsmobile- BTW guys, when
> you talk about mpg, how many liters has the galon - 3.84?
> rgds
> Matt
>

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:05:59 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: What is a muscle car? was: muscle cars handling

> Uh, which gallon?
> Ian


Ian, that's one for you!

U.S. or Imperial gallon, a holdover from the British Empire.

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:03:34 -0600
From: Kevin Wright <krwright@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: RE: seatbelts

On Feb 23, 2004, at 2:13 PM, oldsmobile-digest wrote:

> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:39:02 -0500
> From: Tom Bejma <tomcb@prplastics.com>
> Subject: RE: seatbelts
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: SteveH [mailto:k0xp@dandy.net]

>> At Sunday, 22 February 2004, you wrote:
>>
>> If it's considered safety equipment, you are not allowed to fool
>> with it less you not only degrade the efficacy of your own vehicle,
>> but also endanger others, both within your vehicle and on the highway
>> with you.
>
> How is replacing a 35 year old seat belt with a brand new, much
> stronger and proven race system endangering others?

It's not, but the gub'mint gotta have their little piece of the action 
by way of certification, you know.
Actually, I know it's to keep idiots from replacing their seatbelts 
with pants belts or something, but you'd think that there would be some 
allowance for SFI/FIA or other racing safety organization certs.
The same issue exists, for example, regarding braided stainless-steel 
brake lines, though I have seen some intelligent arguments over that 
one, mainly to the effect that race stuff is inspected often, while 
consumer stuff has to deal with being ignored.
>
> I'll eat the ticket to make sure my wife, kids and myself are belted
> in the Cutlass with the best available lap belt made - even if our
> ever so "wise" government (DOT) has not seen fit to approve the system.

My wife actually wants 4- or 5-points. She hates the 3-point belts, and 
claims that some relative of hers was beheaded or strangled or 
something.
I believe I'll be going with the Scroths, myself. Maybe even spring for 
the nifty automatic locking retractor ones. You just have to switch 
back to the lap belts if anyone wants to sit in the back...
>
> Tom Bejma
>>
>> SteveH
>>>
>>> Milton Schick
>>>
On digest mode, so I'm a little slow...

Kevin Wright                                         
krwright@sbcglobal.net
Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX                             
http://www.wankel.net/~krwright/cars/olds/70Olds.html

'71 Cutlass S for sale, less engine and trans: 
http://www.wankel.net/~krwright/cars/olds71_cutlass.html

Snoopy: 1970 Oldsmobile Cutlass S Sports Coupe - It wants to be a W-31! 
And have EFI, 4-wheel discs, a 6-speed, a turbo or two... :)
...and a '71 Holiday Coupe less engine/transmission for sale - it'll be 
parts if someone doesn't buy it!

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:05:11 -0300
From: "Tour Op & Travel Agency Trade 2000" <travelchile@manquehue.net>
Subject: Re: Galon-liters

Ok, ok... I want just to know how MUUUUCH mpg I'm getting from my brave
260ci with a std carb and ignition ( no ECU anymore )
Last time it was 14.8mpg in the city/expressway driving... seems ok for a
1981 car with no overdrive trans. In numbers close to the 15,88 liters per
100km... but far from 6.3kmpl we use down here, quite a mess, isn't it?
rgds
Matt

> I'm just being a smartass Matt.  If I'm right the Canadian gallon was
> the Imperial gallon, and as such was a little bigger than the US gallon.
> I know now you refer to the US gallon. We've used liters in Canada for
> about 2 decades now.  I'll shutup now.
> Ian
>
>
> Well, just the galon you pour to your gas reservoir... I use liters all
> my
> life...
> Matt
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> @chebucto.ns.ca [mailto:oldsmobile- BTW guys, when
> > you talk about mpg, how many liters has the galon - 3.84?
> > rgds
> > Matt
> >
>
>

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:07:07 -0600
From: "jbschuren" <jbschuren@houston.rr.com>
Subject: Re: shake?

does the shake occur while driving? if so, could be driveline angle related.
I say this because I'm sure you had to shorten the drive shaft for the
4speed auto to fit.

JB Schuren
71Cutlass Conv Rocket 350 w/HEI.
03 Dodge Ram 1500 Hemi QC
http://foggy.audioguy.net


- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "JOHN ORR" <jorr@paylessequipment.com>
To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 10:47 AM
Subject: shake?


>   Hey List,
>     Last week-end I did the auto to 4 speed swap in my 67 cutlass supreme,
I
> now
> have a pretty good shake going on. It begains around 2 grand and levels
out
> a little
> at higher rpm.
>     Here is what I have.....   some will remember my questions in the past
> about H.B.
> for the 330 and 350's... I have a 330 crank and it is set up for manual
> tranns. it is a
> 350 block from a 72, 7a heads 4 barrel set up. So my question is what
should
> I look for as to why it should be shaking after the swap, I would like to
> think that it
> needs a carb and spark plugs, the car has been setting in a warehouse, and
> only driven in and out for the last year or so.
>     Any help would be great.
> thanks
> john
> 67 cutlass supreme...
>

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:29:23 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: will my project car be illegal?

> when you're talking about a vehicle as old as a '79 -- first the
inspectors
> need to figure out what _should_ be on the car in the first place, and I
> think it's safe to say that no one will have documentation for that.


Unfortunately, that's not true in all jurisdictions. In Arizona,
specifically in the Phoenix and Tucson non-attainment areas, the inspection
stations **do** know exactly what should be on each vehicle for emissions
equipment all the way back to 1967, and it's enforced. It doesn't matter
whether the vehicle can pass the emissions test or not. If one minor item of
emissions equipment is missing, the vehicle fails the emissions test. That's
Arizona state law, originally copied from California, but never relaxed or
changed when California changed their emission stautes at the CARB.


What's
> more relevant is whether the car will pass an emissions test. If you're
> exempt from that, you're all but home free.


That's why for car people in Arizona, anything 1966 and earlier is Golden.


> Putting a convertor (or two) on isn't going to hurt your engine; their
> backpressure will be negligible


I disagree on that one.


> 1) You can't exactly "tamper" with devices that weren't on the 1972
> powertrain to begin with.


You can when the state goes by the model year of the vehicle, which in this
case is '79, and doesn't care what the engine is.

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:37:57 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: seatbelts

I talked to a Pima County (Tucson) Sheriff's Deputy last night. He said that
Arizona simply enforces whether or not one is wearing a seat belt. They
would *not* check to see if it's DOT approved. Furthermore, he said that any
deputy would understand the difference between an OEM seat belt or shoulder
harness and a racing one. If a deputy saw a 3" wide racing seat belt or a
full 4 or 5 point racing harness system, the most he would say would be
"good choice."

Now that doesn't mean that another repressive state might not have a stupid
attitude, but that's another story. So far, Arizona is the most repressive
with vehicle emissions but doesn't care about DOT safety equipment
substitutions.

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com


- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Wright" <krwright@sbcglobal.net>
To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: seatbelts


>
> On Feb 23, 2004, at 5:39 AM, oldsmobile-digest wrote:
>
> > Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:49:59 -0500
> > From: Joe Vitek <joevitek@comcast.net>
> > Subject: Re: seatbelts
> >
> > Andrew Geeting wrote:
> >
> >>> From what I understand, a 5pt harness is not DOT approved and you
> >>> can be
> >> ticketed for wearing one.
> >
> > Hmmm, now that is a good point. When I get the '81 CS prepared for
> > road racing
> > use for the Silver State Challenge, it will have a 'cage and 5 point
> > harnesses
> > for both front seat occupants. I want to be able to drive it on the
> > street
> > with this setup, but don't want to be ticketed every time I drive out
> > of New
> > Hampshire. Does anyone know for sure about what Andrew stated above or
> > where
> > any info on this can be found? New Hampshire doesn't have a seatbelt
> > law for
> > adults, so no problem there for me. BUT, when I drive into Maine,
> > Vermont or
> > Mass, I don't want to be hassled.
>
> Schroth (pronounced "shrote") harnesses are DOT-legal.
> http://www.soloracer.com/harnschrothfaq.html
>
> >
> On digest mode, so I'm a little slow...
>
> Kevin Wright
> krwright@sbcglobal.net
> Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX
> http://www.wankel.net/~krwright/cars/olds/70Olds.html
>
> '71 Cutlass S for sale, less engine and trans:
> http://www.wankel.net/~krwright/cars/olds71_cutlass.html
>
> Snoopy: 1970 Oldsmobile Cutlass S Sports Coupe - It wants to be a W-31!
> And have EFI, 4-wheel discs, a 6-speed, a turbo or two... :)
> ...and a '71 Holiday Coupe less engine/transmission for sale - it'll be
> parts if someone doesn't buy it!
>
>

------------------------------

End of oldsmobile-digest V1 #4791
*********************************
