
oldsmobile-digest     Tuesday, February 17 2004     Volume 01 : Number 4779



Re: The New GTO
Re: The New GTO
WAS:The New GTO >>NOW: The TV show TopGear
Re: The New GTO
Fwd: The New GTO
UNBOUNCE: Need '62 Super 88 Wiper Motor
Re: The New GTO
Re: The New GTO
Re: The New GTO
Re: The New GTO
Re: WAS:The New GTO >>NOW: The TV show TopGear
Re: The New GTO
Re: The New GTO
Re: The New GTO
Re: The New GTO
Re: The New GTO
Re: Is my transmission fried?
Re: The New GTO
Re: The New GTO
of 231 vs 3.8 vs 3800 interchageability
350 valvetrain woes
Re: Crank sensor (was of 231 vs 3.8 vs 3800 interchageability)
Who's going to drive their H/O at the Indy track this July?
Re: The New GTO
Re: Crank sensor (was of 231 vs 3.8 vs 3800 interchageability)
Re: Who's going to drive their H/O at the Indy track this July?

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:11:31 -0500
From: SteveH <k0xp@dandy.net>
Subject: Re: The New GTO

At Monday, 16 February 2004, you wrote:
>Let me ask you, would that not have been the case when buying 
>a '72 Cutlass convertible in '72? I mean, we're complaining 
>about how cars of today look everything else on the road but 
>why wouldn't they? I mean, they did just come off an assembly 
>line with 1,000's of others.

Tell me what makes a FWD vehicle made in 1985 look any different 
from a FWD vehicle made in 2004.

Go on, I'm waiting.  :o|

COME ON, I'm STILL waiting!!!  ;o\  ;o\  ;o\

19 lousy years of "techonological advances", and most of us STILL 
can't tell them apart.

Something's wrong somewhere out there in Carland.

>Give the '99 Trans-am 30 years and then pull it out of the 
>garage and drive it around. See how many looks you get with 
>it. By then it WILL be something very different and exciting. ;)

That's very cool. When I started driving my '64 Goat to college in 
1972, it was ALREADY almost considered a "classic", getting looks 
and gathering spectators everywhere. After just 8 years. And that 
was in the LA area where old cars last almost forever.

SteveH



===================================================================
EASY access to your email http://webmail.dandy.net/mr2/nph-mr.cgi
===================================================================

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:42:05 -0500
From: james.zito@ps.ge.com
Subject: Re: The New GTO

Ok I'll jump in too since everybody else is .....

Milton, I think you are wrong on the you can't get high performance out of
today's cars and stay 
in the emissions envelope.  There are a ton of people out there with
screaming vehicles.

The thing is you don't get 600-1200 horses out of a 4 or 6 banger with
simple bolt ons like you could 
in the 60s and early 70s.  Now you have to do them AND be smart enough to
hack the computer 
programs that are running the engines.  

I have seen shows where they pulled consistent dyno runs of 700+ HP out of a
Celica that was still 
streetable.  

Jim
No I haven't joined the white rice side 
still working on the 
69 442 conv.........

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:44:43 -0600
From: "Reed, Stephen" <sreed@chatsworth.com>
Subject: WAS:The New GTO >>NOW: The TV show TopGear

Andrew,

[SNIP]

>Has anyone seen the GTO test drive from the TV show TopGear? Its definitely
>going to be a fast car. :)))

>Andrew Geeting

I'm not familiar with this one, what channel and time is this on?

Thanks!


Steve Reed
'96 9C1 Chevy Caprice
'70 Cutlass Supreme Ragtop (In Reassembly mode)
'68 Cutlass Supreme (Seized Engine)
Austin, TX
http://www.sreed.0catch.com/html/cars.html

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:56:11 -0600
From: "Reed, Stephen" <sreed@chatsworth.com>
Subject: Re: The New GTO

Milton,

[SNIP]

>But that's not really the point. There are really a lot of vehicles in the
>past decade that really run extremely well, in stock form. But...you can't
>modify them to run much better without compromising the emissions package.

This is a not a true statement.  Check out G.M. High-Tech Performance Magazine.

>'64-'67 muscle cars don't have any emissions package, as long as it wasn't a
>California car, and '68-'72 only have slight emissions add-ons. One can
>modify those vehicles into unbelievable performance levels, and still be
>streetable. That's a performance realm, both in a straight line and around a
>corner, that will eat any stock F-body alive. Unless the F-body has been
>modified to the point where it can no longer pass an emissions check, it
>can't win.

>Milton Schick

I've only been into the new generation cars for a little over 2 months now that I've got my LT1 equipped '96 Caprice.  Believe me, there are TONS of stuff to high perf these vehicles, and keep them puking the computer codes (just get it reprogrammed).

It's absolutely incredible; larger throttle bodies, ported intakes & heads, wild roller camshafts, larger fuel spitting injectors, cold air intakes, reprogrammed EPROMs.  All in a vehicle that handles a helluva lot better than our older cars, more ergonomic interiors (and SAFER!), and will get better fuel economy as well.

I would have to argue that a New 'Vette equipped with the latest and greatest after market/performance mods wouldn't beat a '67-427 'Vette.

I just finished reading an article about a guy who's got an 8-second Grand National that runs on the street.  All he has to do is put the slicks on it to hook up for the 8 second times.  Check out G.M. High-Tech Performance Magazine.

All that said (written) I'm not about to get rid of my 2 Olds' any time before I die.  I don't like the styling of newer cars one bit, but the new technology is nothing to laugh at.


Steve Reed
'96 9C1 Chevy Caprice
'70 Cutlass Supreme Ragtop (In Reassembly mode)
'68 Cutlass Supreme (Seized Engine)
Austin, TX
http://www.sreed.0catch.com/html/cars.html

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:59:06 EST
From: JonKrisInc@aol.com
Subject: Fwd: The New GTO

- --part1_90.4275d523.2d62891a_boundary
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="-----------------------------1076965145"


- -------------------------------1076965145
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 2/16/2004 1:42:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
geeting@woh.rr.com writes:
Let me ask you, would that not have been the case when buying a '72 Cutlass
convertible in '72? I mean, we're complaining about how cars of today look
everything else on the road but why wouldn't they? I mean, they did just
come off an assembly line with 1,000's of others.
Andrew,
Personally, I don't think so. Each of those muscle cars had their own 
distinctive design. Don't forget, most of those cars were American. Even Mercedes 
Benz didn't have their own showroom (they used Studabaker showrooms until 1957). 
There wasn't a deluge of foreign-made computer designed cars all using the 
same technology. Plus, in those days, they changed the design every two years. In 
Brooklyn, NY where I grew up, there was a dealership called Gaines 
Oldsmobile. They used to cover the inside of their showroom windows with Glass Wax so 
you couldn't see the new cars, brought in the night before. We used to strain 
for glimpses. The next day, they would clean little circles so you could look in 
and see the new cars. It was really exciting. 
New car makers have to use old marqees to attract new customers. They had to 
bring back Harley Earl?...a guy who designed these beautiful cars, from the 
dead, to try and sell us the latest muscle car wannabes.
Let's face it. We're on this list because our cars represent a moment in time.
The fact that new car people compare their cars to ours has to say something 
about how cool our cars really are.

Bruce
75 Delta 88 Conv. (duals, of course)
72 Cutlass Conv.
56 190 SL Conv.
92 Eldo

- -------------------------------1076965145
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=3DUS-ASCII http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; cha=
rset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffff=
f">
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 2/16/2004 1:42:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, geeting@=
woh.rr.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue=20=
2px solid"><FONT face=3DArial>Let me ask you, would that not have been the c=
ase when buying a '72 Cutlass<BR>convertible in '72? I mean, we're complaini=
ng about how cars of today look<BR>everything else on the road but why would=
n't they? I mean, they did just<BR>come off an assembly line with 1,000's of=
 others.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV>Andrew,</DIV>
<DIV>Personally, I don't think so. Each of those muscle cars had their own d=
istinctive design. Don't forget, most of those cars were American. Even Merc=
edes Benz didn't have their own showroom (they used Studabaker showrooms unt=
il 1957). There wasn't a deluge of foreign-made computer designed&nbsp;cars=20=
all using the same technology. Plus, in those days, they changed the design=20=
every two years. In Brooklyn, NY where I grew up, there was a dealership cal=
led Gaines Oldsmobile. They used to cover the inside of their showroom windo=
ws with Glass Wax so you couldn't see the new cars, brought in the night bef=
ore. We used to strain for glimpses.&nbsp;The next day, they would clean lit=
tle circles so you could look in and see the new cars. It was really excitin=
g. </DIV>
<DIV>New car makers&nbsp;have to use old marqees to attract new customers. T=
hey had to bring back Harley Earl?...a guy who designed these beautiful cars=
, from the dead, to try and sell us the latest muscle car wannabes.</DIV>
<DIV>Let's face it. We're on this list because our cars represent a moment i=
n time.</DIV>
<DIV>The fact that new car people compare their cars to ours has to say some=
thing about&nbsp;how cool&nbsp;our cars really are.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=3D0 face=3DArial size=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D"10"=
>Bruce<BR>75 Delta 88 Conv. (duals, of course)<BR>72 Cutlass Conv.<BR>56 190=
 SL Conv.<BR>92 Eldo</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- -------------------------------1076965145--

- --part1_90.4275d523.2d62891a_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <oldsmobile-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
Received: from  rly-yg02.mx.aol.com (rly-yg02.mail.aol.com [172.18.180.98]) by air-yg03.mail.aol.com (v98.6) with ESMTP id MAILINYG31-26e40310ee03ca; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:42:08 -0500
Received: from  halifax.chebucto.ns.ca (chebucto.ns.ca [192.75.95.75]) by rly-yg02.mx.aol.com (v98.5) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINYG22-26e40310ee03ca; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:41:38 -0500
Received: (daemon@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca) by halifax.chebucto.ns.ca
        id S2391AbUBPSjq (ORCPT <rfc822;James244@aol.com> + 36 others);
        Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:39:46 -0400
Received: from loki.chebucto.ns.Ca ([192.75.95.97]:43758 "EHLO
        loki.chebucto.ns.ca") by halifax.chebucto.ns.ca with ESMTP
        id S26411AbUBPSia (ORCPT
        <rfc822;"|/csuite/etc/majordomo/wrapper resend -l oldsmobile -h chebucto.ns.ca oldsmobile-mml">);
        Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:38:30 -0400
Received: from ms-smtp-03-smtplb.ohiordc.rr.com ([65.24.5.137]:61082 "EHLO
        ms-smtp-03-eri0.ohiordc.rr.com") by loki.chebucto.ns.ca with ESMTP
        id <S4252301AbUBPSdx>; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:33:53 -0400
Received: from hppav (dhcp024-209-102-156.woh.rr.com [24.209.102.156])
        by ms-smtp-03-eri0.ohiordc.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id i1GIHq4D027067
        for <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:17:54 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <002601c3f4b9$2ea072a0$9c66d118@hppav>
From: "Andrew Geeting" <geeting@woh.rr.com>
To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
References: <85.5679d29.2d624401@aol.com>
Subject: Re: The New GTO
Date:   Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:17:47 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine
X-MailScanner: Clean
X-Is-Spam: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-4.9, required 5, BAYES_00 -4.90)
Sender: oldsmobile-owner@chebucto.ns.ca
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca
X-AOL-IP: 192.75.95.75

 BUT.... what's missing is the look!  Where's the style?

Personally I think the '98-'02 Trans-AM WS-6 package is one of the nicest
looking cars out there.

How many thumbs up are you going to get driving todays sameness. I just
bought my son a '99 TransAm with the LS 1 engine and a six speed. It's a fun
car to drive, but on any given day, it's just one of many like it on the
road.

Let me ask you, would that not have been the case when buying a '72 Cutlass
convertible in '72? I mean, we're complaining about how cars of today look
everything else on the road but why wouldn't they? I mean, they did just
come off an assembly line with 1,000's of others.


My '72 Cutlass Conv. is quite a different story. The older cars are simply
better looking, more fun to drive, and,  if you DO see another like it on
the road, it's exciting! And isn't that what it's really all about?

Give the '99 Trans-am 30 years and then pull it out of the garage and drive
it around. See how many looks you get with it. By then it WILL be something
very different and exciting. ;)

Andrew Geeting
geeting@woh.rr.com
'87 Cutlass Supreme 461
'98 Olds Intrigue 3.8L
http://home.woh.rr.com/designsofarch/index/olds_site/olds.swf



- --part1_90.4275d523.2d62891a_boundary--

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:04:23 -0400 (AST)
From: Greg Beaulieu <ab348@chebucto.ns.ca>
Subject: UNBOUNCE: Need '62 Super 88 Wiper Motor

Not on the list, respond to rpvdsr@charter.net if you can assist.

Greg Beaulieu    ab348@chebucto.ns.ca    Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
          Olds List Admin Info: http://oldslist.oldsgmail.com

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:   "PAT OR DICK" <rpvdsr@charter.net>
Subject: wiper motor

             Gentlemen:
                     I have been looking for a windshield wiper motor =
for a 1962 olds. super 88
              can you help me?  Thank you!
                     My E mail address is    rpvdsr@charter.net  
                             Richard Dulude

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:23:34 EST
From: Tremendous442@aol.com
Subject: Re: The New GTO

- -------------------------------1076970214
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

There are a lot of reasons why cars today are the way they are. I bet we 
don't even know all the guidelines that the engineers are given. It's a 
complicated world today.

- -------------------------------1076970214
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=3DUS-ASCII http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; cha=
rset=3DUS-ASCII>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffff=
f">There are a lot of reasons why cars today are the way they are. I bet we=20=
don't even know all the guidelines that the engineers are given. It's a comp=
licated world today.</BODY></HTML>

- -------------------------------1076970214--

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:25:47 EST
From: Tremendous442@aol.com
Subject: Re: The New GTO

- -------------------------------1076970347
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

It was for us. Plenty of people out there that don't give a damn or even know 
what the hell we are talking about. Some disagree and prefer today's cars. 

- -------------------------------1076970347
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=3DUS-ASCII http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; cha=
rset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffff=
f">It was for us. Plenty of people out there that don't give a damn or even=20=
know what the hell we are talking about. Some disagree and prefer today's ca=
rs. </BODY></HTML>

- -------------------------------1076970347--

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:29:44 EST
From: Tremendous442@aol.com
Subject: Re: The New GTO

- -------------------------------1076970584
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

exactly. well said.

- -------------------------------1076970584
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=3DUS-ASCII http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; cha=
rset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffff=
f">exactly. well said.</BODY></HTML>

- -------------------------------1076970584--

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:32:51 EST
From: Tremendous442@aol.com
Subject: Re: The New GTO

- -------------------------------1076970771
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

64-72 A bodies have several design flaws as well. The 442's are certainly the 
best made one of the group, but they still could have improved some things, 
the technology was there. But just like now, there are guidline that the 
engineers have to abide with.

- -------------------------------1076970771
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=3DUS-ASCII http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; cha=
rset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffff=
f">64-72 A bodies have several design flaws as well. The 442's are certainly=
 the best made one of the group, but they still could have improved some thi=
ngs, the technology was there. But just like now, there are guidline that th=
e engineers have to abide with.</BODY></HTML>

- -------------------------------1076970771--

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:35:32 EST
From: Tremendous442@aol.com
Subject: Re: WAS:The New GTO >>NOW: The TV show TopGear

- -------------------------------1076970932
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I saw it on HP TV and nobody was impressed.

- -------------------------------1076970932
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=3DUS-ASCII http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; cha=
rset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffff=
f">I saw it on HP TV and nobody was impressed.</BODY></HTML>

- -------------------------------1076970932--

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:36:14 -0500
From: Joe Vitek <joevitek@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: The New GTO

Tremendous442@aol.com wrote:
> exactly. well said.

What was?

- --
joe vitek

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:40:57 +0000
From: Steve Harrison <k0xp@dandy.net>
Subject: Re: The New GTO

At 03:08 PM 2/16/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>"None of those cars in the sixties had the personality or looks of 
>the '55-'57 Bel Airs.  They all look the same to me."

Hmmpphh: seen one '55 or '56 or '57, seen em all  ;o\  ;o\  ;o\

SteveH

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:34:17 +0000
From: Steve Harrison <k0xp@dandy.net>
Subject: Re: The New GTO

At 02:50 PM 2/16/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>Woops, sorry about that.  Some things with GM (OK most things anymore) are 
>just all wrong and I'd like to set them straight.

Maybe we all need to go buy a Rustang to show what we think of GM styling,
then drop an Olds in it to show Frod we didn't buy the thing just cause
it's Frod  ;o))))))

SteveH

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:39:10 +0000
From: Steve Harrison <k0xp@dandy.net>
Subject: Re: The New GTO

At 01:10 PM 2/16/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>Fred, I really like your way with words.

So do I  :o)

>Just because technology advances doesn't necessarily mean the technology is
>good.

Just witness Mr. Gates' contraptions of the last decade  ;o\  ;o\  ;o\

That F-106 ejection seat story was gory  XoP

My last trip to White Sands, I enjoyed touring the little "museum" of
schtuffs that had run down the Mach-10 rocket sled track, which included an
ejection module from something. It was even cooler being at the end of the
track and hearing a few runs  :o))))))))

Gahd, how I miss those days and that place ;o((((((

SteveH

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:01:40 -0500
From: "swanny" <swannys78@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: The New GTO

I agree.

Look, If we had known that the cars we own today that are 30 plus years old,
and we have all these clubs that support our interests, is it fair to say we
can't have a new GTO? We need to keep these cars out there. Remember George
Jetson? Is that what it will come to?.....Honey, open my wallet, I think I
left little Bethany in the back seat. My opinion, albeit small, gotta get
with the program. It's all about respect. It takes alot more brains to find
out why your new car that doesn't have points to adjust, to get the right
tweak out of the motor.

The meek shall inherit the earth.





riginal Message -----
From: <Tremendous442@aol.com>
To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 5:00 AM
Subject: Re: The New GTO


> You guys are killing me, I have to jump in on this one. Yes, the new GTO
> sucks. But to say the muscle car days were over in 1972 is ridiculous.
What about
> the Z06 corvette? Low 13's stock, and you can drive to New York and back
in
> comfort. Try that in a Hemi car, or big block 67 Corvette. And there are
several
> aftermarket choices that you can do to a C5 vette that will make it faster
> and still pass emissions. How fast were stock Hemi cars? That is subject
to
> opinions and so many variables exist on a car like that. I have seen them
run 13's
> and 14's myself. Yeah, occasioally a guy comes out there and blisters a
mid
> 12, but he is few and far between. You could pick a Z06 of any color and
rip
> off a low 13 second much more consistantly than any car of the 60''s could
do.
> Remember the tires of the 60's?
>
> A few other vehicles to mention, 1987 Buick Grand National, and GNX. 1991
GMC
> Syclone pick up, ran 13.1 bone stock, 13.2 with a completely water
saturated
> track. What 60's car can do that? Even with today's tires? NOT! I am just
> scratching the tip of the iceberg here. Hey I love the cars of the 60's.
Shit I
> own 5 442's right now, and have owned many others over the years. But
today's
> technology is far superior. Many cars are as fast and faster, while
creating
> less emissions,  using less fuel, and breaking down less. Don't try to
tell me
> how dependable the old cars were compared to the new cars. Just about any
car
> produced today can go 200,000 miles with an average owner doing average
> maintenance. Back in the 60's, it was common to need a valve job at around
120,000
> miles. Todays cars are by far more dependable, it is not even close. I am
a
> Journeyman Mechanic and have been for 15 years, so I feel my opinion is
one to pay
> attention to.
>
> Anyways, the cars of today are supposed to be better because they have
newer
> technology. But that does not mean we have to like it. I just feel like
you
> guys are giving the newer cars a bum rap, because I have driven quite a
few that
> will pass emissions and show you nothing but tail lights in a race between
> your 69 442 and a Z06, or a viper, or an NSX, or a GNX, or a 2000 SS
Camaro, or
> a 350Z, or  should I go on?
>
> Sean McCarthy
> Certified Journeyman Mechanic
> 1964 442
> 1966 L69 442  (2)
> 1967 442        (2)
>
>
> It's not just a job..........
>

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:21:41 EST
From: Kt8321@aol.com
Subject: Re: Is my transmission fried?

- --part1_4d.3afcfc2b.2d62aa85_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

My 71 Delta has a slight pump or converter whine on cold start. It goes away 
after a few minutes. When driving, it has a very strange whistling sound 
through 1st and 2nd gear, but not in 3rd. The original owner said, "It's been doing 
that since 1974." 
This car was very well maintained, and serviced regularly. At 151K, the trans 
still works perfectly except for this hair-raising noise. I'm sure I could 
narrow down the suspect area using the power flow-chart in my tranny book. This 
trans will probably get a rebuild this year, but if this noise is related to a 
case problem, such as porosity, I would like to know before hand. It may be 
something that will be evident on tear-down. I would seriously NOT want to get 
it back from the rebuilder and find it has this same noise. Any thoughts on 
this from the TH400 users is greatly appreciated.

Ken Thomas
69 and 71 Deltas

- --part1_4d.3afcfc2b.2d62aa85_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><HTML><FONT  SIZE=3D2 PTSIZE=3D10 FAMILY=
=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">My 71 Delta has a slight pump or co=
nverter whine on cold start. It goes away after a few minutes. When driving,=
 it has a very strange whistling sound through 1st and 2nd gear, but not in=20=
3rd. The original owner said, "It's been doing that since 1974." <BR>
This car was very well maintained, and serviced regularly. At 151K, the tran=
s still works perfectly except for this hair-raising noise. I'm sure I could=
 narrow down the suspect area using the power flow-chart in my tranny book.=20=
This trans will probably get a rebuild this year, but if this noise is relat=
ed to a case problem, such as porosity, I would like to know before hand. It=
 may be something that will be evident on tear-down. I would seriously NOT w=
ant to get it back from the rebuilder and find it has this same noise. Any t=
houghts on this from the TH400 users is greatly appreciated.<BR>
<BR>
Ken Thomas<BR>
69 and 71 Deltas</FONT></HTML>

- --part1_4d.3afcfc2b.2d62aa85_boundary--

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:29:06 -0700
From: Mark Mullins <mark@marineaviation.org>
Subject: Re: The New GTO

One of my bigger thrills from driving the 442 is the attention I get from 
other drivers, particularly those in other older cars (and there are plenty 
in Tucson)  I can sit at a redlight and mouth conversations with other 
drivers, as we both share the interest in old iron.

M

At 10:16 AM 2/16/2004 -0700, Milton wrote:
>Steve H. just did an excellent job of making the point. I hit on the inside
>engineering and mechanicals.
>
>Steve hit the estetics and charisma of the '64 to '72 muscle cars. They just
>were, some much more than others. Additionally, one could push their
>performance evelope as far as humanly possible, which just added to the
>muscle car estetics and charisma. That charisma doesn't exist today.
>
>'64 to '72 *was* the Golden Age of American automobile performance, with
>visionaries like Knudsen, Deloren, Shelby, Thompson, and a bunch of others
>to lead it.

Mark Mullins
Tucson, Az

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:59:19 -0700
From: Mark Mullins <mark@marineaviation.org>
Subject: Re: The New GTO

During 2000-2001 when I was in Okinawa, I saw quite a few 5-600 HP ricers 
beating the streets.  But they really start breaking things when they get 
close to 500 HP on them.  The big sport among the local youth and young 
Marines was "drifting".  And as always, kids have more money than common sense.

M


At 03:42 PM 2/16/2004 -0500, Jim Zito wrote:
>The thing is you don't get 600-1200 horses out of a 4 or 6 banger with 
>simple bolt ons like you could in the 60s and early 70s.  Now you have to 
>do them AND be smart enough to hack the computer programs that are running 
>the engines.
>
>I have seen shows where they pulled consistent dyno runs of 700+ HP out of 
>a Celica that was still streetable.
>
>Jim
>No I haven't joined the white rice side

Mark Mullins
Tucson, Az

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:28:40 -0500
From: "Christopher Witt" <rocketscience442@hotmail.com>
Subject: of 231 vs 3.8 vs 3800 interchageability

From: King V <king_v@mindless.com>
Subject: of 231 vs 3.8 vs 3800 interchageability

All,

	Ok, we all know that the 2-bbl 231 made its way into numerous Oldses.
Later, the FI 3.8 V6 (code 3) made its way into the front-drive cars, later
replaced by the 3800 V6 (code C).

	My question:  Will the intake manifold from the FI models (3 or C code)
bolt up to the RWD carbureted 231 V6?  I'm thinking that if I ever come
across a good one, converting a RWD Cutlass (or Regal) over to multiport FI
might be an interesting project.

	No, I haven't figured out how to rig in a cam or crank sensor.... why do
you ask?
===============
crank sensor for the V6?
Or for V8?
There is a crank sensor for the Olds V8- all the 1977 Toronados have crank 
triggered ignition. I have such a system or two.
- ----------------------
Chris Witt
1303 W. Miller Rd.
Lansing MI 48911

RocketScience442@hotmail.com

Cell 517-449-0432 weekends or short weekday calls or leave message.
Home 517-882-9747 thru 10-11pm MI time most days

_________________________________________________________________
Check out the great features of the new MSN 9 Dial-up, with the MSN Dial-up 
Accelerator. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:37:12 -0500
From: "Christopher Witt" <rocketscience442@hotmail.com>
Subject: 350 valvetrain woes

Well... National Automotive lines cleverly sent me 2 differing types of new 
rocker/ pedestal assemblies for the 350 I am rebuilding. Std stock vs. 3-pc 
pedestal. No big whoop, all interchangeable, huh?

Not sure.

Started with std style on left bank. NO lifter preload. All seemed alike, 
which is good, but we're talking like 0 to .005 MAYBE just barely detectable 
lifter preload.

Put the 3-pc pedestals on RH bank, they all behaved as they should- 1/2 to 
1.5 turns of the rocker bolt from initial clearance takeup to fully seated.

So, today I milled .050 off each of the std type pedestals. Harumph. That 
should be good for up to .075" lifter preload, and I can reduce that to 
*exactly* what I need with shims under the pedestals.

Maybe, just maybe I try to obtain another set of 4 of the 3-pc pedestals, 
and see if they behave OK on left bank. I guess I first can try swapping L 
and R and see if problem follows pedestals or stays with cylinder bank.

Other than that, the engine assembly is coming right nicely.

Oh, and I got "sort-of a job" at long last too.
Keeping alternator abuse testers up-n-running for Ford/ Visteon, making 
engine behave on dyno for another alternator test [all day every day for 20 
days and 20 hours, 1000 to 5000 to 1000 rpm; repeat, while 250F air toasts 
the alternator]. Very temporary position however. :-(
- -----------------------
Chris Witt
1303 W. Miller Rd.
Lansing MI 48911

RocketScience442@hotmail.com

Cell 517-449-0432 weekends or short weekday calls or leave message.
Home 517-882-9747 thru 10-11pm MI time most days

_________________________________________________________________
Find great local high-speed Internet access value at the MSN High-Speed 
Marketplace. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:09:34 -0500
From: "Chris Carson" <fastcarson@prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: Crank sensor (was of 231 vs 3.8 vs 3800 interchageability)

Do you have some pics of this system?? Would be very interested in seeing
this, and wonder if it's adaptable to later model systems. But how did it
determine TDC on the compression stroke, I wonder? No cam sensor?

Chris
- ----- Original Message -----
> crank sensor for the V6?
> Or for V8?
> There is a crank sensor for the Olds V8- all the 1977 Toronados have crank
> triggered ignition. I have such a system or two.
> ----------------------
> Chris Witt
> 1303 W. Miller Rd.
> Lansing MI 48911
>
> RocketScience442@hotmail.com
>
> Cell 517-449-0432 weekends or short weekday calls or leave message.
> Home 517-882-9747 thru 10-11pm MI time most days
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Check out the great features of the new MSN 9 Dial-up, with the MSN
Dial-up
> Accelerator. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/
>

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:33:24 -0500
From: "Joe Gutierrez" <joe_gut@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Who's going to drive their H/O at the Indy track this July?

Just curious as to who's planning to go to Indy this time.  I was there in
99, but it's a much longer drive for me from Ft. Lauderdale vs. St. Louis
where I lived last time, not sure if I'm up for trailering the car all that
way.  Randy & Don, are your H/O's going to be ready this time?

Where in the heck have 5 years gone?

Joe Gutierrez
Ft. Lauderdale FL
72 H/O h/t
71 442 conv't

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:49:40 -0500
From: King V <king_v@mindless.com>
Subject: Re: The New GTO

At 01:45 PM 02/16/2004 -0500, Fred wrote:
>Cruiser, '91-'96 Roadmaster, '91-'96 Caprice wagon, RWD  Cadillac, etc.),
>but I will probably look for one of the '93 and older cars with the TBI
>engine.  Why, you ask, when the LT-1 derivative performs so well?  The
>answer is Optispark. Whoever came up with this stupid system should be tied
>to an ant mound and coated in syrup.

Um, I'm a bit clueless here.  What's Optispark and why's it problematic?

Wondering because, up until this point, I'd figured the LT-1 version would
be better than the TBI version.


	- Joe Vahabzadeh

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:58:31 -0500
From: King V <king_v@mindless.com>
Subject: Re: Crank sensor (was of 231 vs 3.8 vs 3800 interchageability)

I thoght he was having a little fun with the terminoloy and was referring
to the distributor.

After all, once you lose the need for a distributor by going to DIS, well,
there's that nice hole in the top of the block that you could probably
quite easily slip in a shaft of some sort and work it like a cam position
sensor.

At least, that's my assumptions from the Rocket Scientist's previous post.

	Joe "But I assume way too much" Vahabzadeh


At 09:09 PM 02/16/2004 -0500, Chris wrote:
>Do you have some pics of this system?? Would be very interested in seeing
>this, and wonder if it's adaptable to later model systems. But how did it
>determine TDC on the compression stroke, I wonder? No cam sensor?
>
>Chris
>----- Original Message -----
>> crank sensor for the V6?
>> Or for V8?
>> There is a crank sensor for the Olds V8- all the 1977 Toronados have crank
>> triggered ignition. I have such a system or two.
>> ----------------------
>> Chris Witt
>> 1303 W. Miller Rd.
>> Lansing MI 48911
>>
>> RocketScience442@hotmail.com

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

Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:19:09 -0500
From: Don Sowers <dstaxpro@infionline.net>
Subject: Re: Who's going to drive their H/O at the Indy track this July?

Joe Gutierrez wrote:

>Just curious as to who's planning to go to Indy this time.  I was there in
>99, but it's a much longer drive for me from Ft. Lauderdale vs. St. Louis
>where I lived last time, not sure if I'm up for trailering the car all that
>way.  Randy & Don, are your H/O's going to be ready this time?
>
>Where in the heck have 5 years gone?
>  
>
I can't speak for Rando, the PA Flash, but I know where mine have gone.  
When the H/O meet was in Indy the last time my dad was about a year past 
a heart valve replacement and another repaired.  He was having all sorts 
of problems with infections and bleeding and the like, so the run to the 
Hoosier state was a way of me escaping from things a bit.  Happily, he 
is still around and putting along.  I opened up my tax practice in an 
"Official" location instead of working from my residence, and my 
daughters have been getting their lives together from ages 20 and 18 to 
their 26 and 24 this year with varying degrees of success.  I have been 
able to expend zero effort in the pursuit of getting toys refurb-ed, but 
have made some headway in finding new outlets for the rapid vanishing of 
any random excesses of the monetary kind.  Still playing softball at 55 
(even though I SWEAR this is my last and final year), and am looking at 
getting my left knee scoped in April when tax season is over.  My wife 
fell about three years ago and broke her right arm in three places 
(which started her losing weight which is a good thing from a bad 
event), and triggered a lot of other changes in the homestead.  Plus she 
was in the hospital last year to have a hernia repaired, so a lot of 
time has been spent in some unpleasant places.  Other than those little 
ole issues, I have been trying to establish my practice in this little 
burg to a lukewarm degree of success.  Obviously my idea of redoing my 
herd of Cutlai/442/GS455 cattle have had to take a hiatus until I can 
find the time and $$$ to make it a reality.  I did buy a newer toy to 
play with, that I should be getting my greedy little hands on in a month 
or so.  I have followed the threads on the GTO, etc with a bit of 
interest, as I have been told the 1991 300ZX  twin turbo I bought is 
rated at 300 hp.  I have been told by someone who says they know these 
cars that with the right tweaking and a handful of money this little 
ride can get into the 700+ hp range.  He swears there are cars in 
Louisville, KY in his car club that are doing this already, so I guess 
it is possible.  As for me, maybe I'm getting old or something, but I 
think 300 hp is enough for me right now.  But then that just might 
change when I get the little white car's 5 speed stick in the palm of my 
right hand and pop the clutch for the first time.  Assuming I make it to 
Indy this year for the H/Os, I suspect the most likely Oldsmobile in my 
herd to be there will be the 70 Supreme convertible, as it will be the 
easiest one to get roadworthy.  Yes, that would make a very nice way to 
show up in my blue ragtop and let it sit admiringly amongst it's more 
muscular brethren, until his big brother comes to life for me.  That one 
is going to take a LOT of money and effort, so it is a future project.  
But then it isn't eating much just sitting inside patiently waiting for 
that magic hand.... 

Soooooooooooo, I suspect I'll be in Hoosierland that weekend to renew 
old acquaintances and make new ones amongst the clan of fellow 
Oldsmobilers.  It will probably be both a time of celebration and 
remorse as the demise of the grand old car line nears it's final 
(undeserving) end.  But then that is a story for another day when I have 
more time and desire to smack the good (?) folks at Grand Ma  for their 
sorry a$$ decision.  ($$$ intentional BTW, as that is all they care 
about any more it seems.)  Sure wish they would turn me loose in the 
design studio for a while just to see what I could come up with.  I 
can't draw or sketch too well, but I sure do have some dynamite ideas in 
my head as to styling ideas.......

Well, as it is getting a little late in the Bluegrass State and I have 
to be here early in the AM, I better hit the send button and get outta 
this place.....  See you guys (and ladies) at the track.  I promise to 
be there a good bit earlier this year than the last time it was more or 
less "local"..

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

End of oldsmobile-digest V1 #4779
*********************************
