
oldsmobile-digest      Monday, February 16 2004      Volume 01 : Number 4778



Re: Custom interior questions
Sorry about my previous message
Re: 68/choke linkage
Re: 68/choke linkage
Re: Is my transmission fried??
Re: The New GTO
Re: Is my transmission fried??
Re: The New GTO
Re: The New GTO
Re: The New GTO
Re: The New GTO
Re: The New GTO
Re: The New GTO
Re: The New GTO
Re: The New GTO
RE: megasquirt?
Re: 330 problems
Re: megasquirt?
Re: The New GTO
Re: The New GTO
Re: The New GTO
selling my 1968 Ninety Eight convertible
Re: The New GTO
Re: The New GTO
Re: The New GTO
Re: 330 problems
Re: The New GTO
Re: The New GTO

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

Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 21:46:04 -0600
From: "Branson Sparks" <bsparks@gosparkle.net>
Subject: Re: Custom interior questions

*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
It probably won't help at all, but the trunk liner in my 85
88 is black. I'm doing a similar subwoofer installation,
and will probably cover the boxes with black carpet from
AutoZone or Wal-mart. I'd be interested to see pictures
when you finish.

- --Branson

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:30:07 -0500
 "Andrew Geeting" <geeting@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> *This message was transferred with a trial version of
> CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
> I'm in the beginning stages of finishing off the interior
> of my trunk. I
> have designed a sub speaker box that takes up the entire
> "shelf" just under
> the rear speakers along with side panels that hide the
> spare tire and the
> drivers side inner 1/4 panel along with hiding both inner
> wheel wells.
> 
> What I would also like to make along with all of this is
> a board that can be
> covered in the same color carpet as the trunk and then
> snapped into place on
> the underside of the trunk lid.
> 
> Anybody know what type of wood board interior shops use
> when they make
> custom door panels? I figure something like that would
> work decent. Any
> ideas on how to conceal the fasters? Should I use two
> boards that are glued
> together with a small space between them that will allow
> the fasteners to be
> installed but not be visible from the finished side?
> 
> Also, is it possible to find carpeting that matches the
> interior carpeting
> but can be used to cover speaker boxes and such? If not
> I'll probably just
> do everything in black.
> Thanks for the help!
> 
> 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
> 
> 

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

Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 21:47:07 -0600
From: "Branson Sparks" <bsparks@gosparkle.net>
Subject: Sorry about my previous message

*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
Didn't mean to leave all of the quoted text at the end, but
hit the send button before I remembered to remove it. Long
day.


- --Branson

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

Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:52:59 -0500
From: Glenn Connors <gpc442@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: 68/choke linkage

I can scan a detailed diagram if that would help.

Glenn Connors
'69  4-4-2
'69  Aurora

The General wrote:

> Hey Glenn and list ...........
>
>         Thats the stuff I am talking about ....
> 36135 ????  I have not seen this part number.
> Does anyone else have this or no what I am
> reffering to ?????
> Would you happen to have access to a digicam ??
>
> The General       patton442@verizon.net

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

Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 23:11:20 -0500
From: "The General" <patton442@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: 68/choke linkage

Please do !!!!


The General       patton442@verizon.net

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

Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 23:40:20 -0500
From: AnTiCr0mBi@aol.com
Subject: Re: Is my transmission fried??

I replaced the filter a bit more than a year ago when I replaced the stock pan with a finned cast aluminum one. It's got plenty of fluid too.

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

Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 23:47:31 -0800
From: geo.aigel@netzero.net
Subject: Re: The New GTO

Face it, the muscle car days are over, basically since 1972.

If I had to choose a contemporary American muscle car, it would be a 
Rustang Cobra. It is very quick, V8, rwd, and has all the fake scoops and 
effects you'll ever need to embarrass yourself. I can't wait for the 2005 
model - the show pictures look great - not that I am going to buy one, like 
Dave already said, that would buy a real nice original muscle car which has 
no loss in value if you keep it up...

George
71 442
71 c/s ragtop

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 01:05:31 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: Is my transmission fried??

Eric,

> But right when I start it (in neutral), it whines severely for a few >
seconds (usually when it's cold, not incredibly worrying). It also > whines
upwards of 2200 RPM. Warm or cold, the more gas I give it, the louder it
gets.


>From the '65 Olds Shop Manual, page 6-86, TH400:

A. Pump Noise
1. Oil low or high; water in oil.
2. Cavitation due to plugged strainer; strainer "O" ring damaged (the o-ring
around the filter tube where it plugs into the trans case, could have been
damaged when the filter was replaced), porosity in intake circuit.
3. Pumps gears - driving gear assembled backwards; gears damaged or scored.

B. Gear noise - first gear (Drive Range)
Planetary gear set (worn, either gears or shafts or both).

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 03:20:14 -0500
From: "Andrew Geeting" <geeting@woh.rr.com>
Subject: Re: The New GTO

> Face it, the muscle car days are over, basically since 1972.

I don't if their over so much as just more refined now. I mean face it, the
last generation F-body's with the LS1 engine could out accelerate, out
brake, and out handle just about ANY muscle car. And at the same time pull
down 25+mpg. In my book thats as good if not better than a muscle car.

> If I had to choose a contemporary American muscle car, it would be a
> Rustang Cobra. It is very quick, V8, rwd, and has all the fake scoops and
> effects you'll ever need to embarrass yourself.

Fortunately for the Cobra, its hoodscoops aren't fake (unlike the GT's) but
all the other little doo dad scoops and such are. Of course, were the scoops
on the original Mustangs real? The side scoops anyway?

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 02:22:36 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: The New GTO

> I don't if their over so much as just more refined now. I mean face it,
the
> last generation F-body's with the LS1 engine could out accelerate, out
> brake, and out handle just about ANY muscle car. And at the same time pull
> down 25+mpg. In my book thats as good if not better than a muscle car.


I don't think you would want to match a stock F-body against a stock '67
435HP 427 'vette L-88 or a stock '66 Dodge or Plymouth factory road racing
package with the 485 HP 426 Hemi. Both vehicles are street legal packages.
The L-88 could be had in a Chevelle or a Camaro, but they didn't have the
'vette's stopping or handling capability.

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.
'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
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 04:41:01 -0500
From: "Andrew Geeting" <geeting@woh.rr.com>
Subject: Re: The New GTO

> I don't think you would want to match a stock F-body against a stock '67
> 435HP 427 'vette L-88 or a stock '66 Dodge or Plymouth factory road racing
> package with the 485 HP 426 Hemi. Both vehicles are street legal packages.
> The L-88 could be had in a Chevelle or a Camaro, but they didn't have the
> 'vette's stopping or handling capability.

Out of curiosity, what did the above vehicle's run in the 1/4? And those
power numbers are gross ratings right? So they were probably closer to
375-390HP SAE?

> 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.

Sure you can. There's plenty of guys that have done it. Just visit
www.LS1tech.com or www.LS1.com or
www.f-bodyhideout.com There's guys running low 12's/high 11's with smog
legal engines. You just have to know how to tune them.

> '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.

Just add one of these:
http://www.vortechsuperchargers.com/products/yourcar/01-02fbody.html 50
States emissions legal :)))

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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:00:45 EST
From: Tremendous442@aol.com
Subject: Re: The New GTO

- -------------------------------1076925645
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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..........

- -------------------------------1076925645
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>You guys are killing me, I have to jump in on this one. Yes, the new GT=
O sucks. But to say the muscle car days were over in 1972 is ridiculous. Wha=
t about the Z06 corvette? Low 13's stock, and you can drive to New York and=20=
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 mak=
e 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=20=
seen them run 13's and 14's myself. Yeah, occasioally a guy comes out there=20=
and blisters a mid 12, but he is few and far between. You could pick a Z06 o=
f any color and rip off a low 13 second much more consistantly than any car=20=
of the 60''s could do. Remember the tires of the 60's?</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>A few other vehicles to mention, 1987 Buick Grand National, and GNX. 19=
91 GMC Syclone pick up, ran 13.1 bone stock, 13.2 with a completely water sa=
turated track. What 60's car can&nbsp;do that? Even with today's tires? NOT!=
 I am just scratching the tip of the iceberg here. Hey I love the cars of th=
e 60's. Shit I own 5 442's right now, and have owned many others over the ye=
ars. But today's technology is far superior. Many cars are as fast and faste=
r, while creating less emissions,&nbsp; using less fuel, and breaking down l=
ess. Don't try to tell me how dependable the old cars were compared to the n=
ew cars. Just about any car produced today can go 200,000 miles with an aver=
age 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 year=
s, so I feel my opinion is one to pay attention to.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Anyways, the cars of today are supposed to be better because they have=20=
newer technology. But that does not mean we have to like it. I just feel lik=
e you guys are giving the newer cars a bum rap, because I have driven quite=20=
a few that will pass emissions and show you nothing but tail lights in a rac=
e between your 69 442 and a Z06, or a viper, or an NSX, or a GNX, or a 2000=20=
SS Camaro, or a 350Z, or &nbsp;should I go on?</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Sean McCarthy</DIV>
<DIV>Certified Journeyman Mechanic</DIV>
<DIV>1964 442</DIV>
<DIV>1966 L69 442&nbsp; (2)</DIV>
<DIV>1967 442&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (2)</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>It's not just a job..........</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- -------------------------------1076925645--

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:12:41 -0500
From: SteveH <k0xp@dandy.net>
Subject: Re: The New GTO

At Monday, 16 February 2004, you wrote:

>> Face it, the muscle car days are over, basically since 1972.
>
>I don't if their over so much as just more refined now. I mean 
>face it, the last generation F-body's with the LS1 engine could 
>out accelerate, out brake, and out handle just about ANY muscle 
>car. And at the same time pull down 25+mpg. In my book thats as 
>good if not better than a muscle car.

Yeah; but they don't have the charisma; the CHARACTER, if you will.

>Of course, were the scoops on the original Mustangs real? The 
>side scoops anyway?

None except on the Boss 429 and that was an embarrassment of an excuse 
of a street car.

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

Who cares: it's ugly, it's plastic, it's too expensive for anybody 
like us, and it's undeserving of the name. They shouldn't have even 
called it a "Pontiac" since it's really a Ch*bby. Bunky Knudsen's 
probly spinning in his grave  ;o(

SteveH



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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:19:03 -0500
From: SteveH <k0xp@dandy.net>
Subject: Re: The New GTO

At Monday, 16 February 2004, you wrote:
>Just add one of these:
>http://www.vortechsuperchargers.com/products/yourcar/01-02fbody.html 50
>States emissions legal :)))

.... and whatcha think one them will make a 435 horse 427 do, eh  ;o)

There's no character in any of today's plastic, neon-colored flattened 
basketball-cars.

SteveH



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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:26:10 EST
From: JonKrisInc@aol.com
Subject: Re: The New GTO

- -------------------------------1076945170
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 2/16/2004 9:27:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, k0xp@dandy.net 
writes:
There's no character in any of today's plastic, neon-colored flattened 
basketball-cars.
I couldn't agree more. Remember the '57 Buick Roadmaster? That was a car. 
Today's "Roadmaster" looks like a submarine sandwich, minus the meat.
My guess is GM will probably come out with a new Oldsmobile Starfire in a 
year or two. I dread to think what materials it will be made of.
I think we need to invest more money into vocational schools, especially the 
design aspect.

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

- -------------------------------1076945170
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 9:27:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, k0xp@dan=
dy.net writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue=20=
2px solid"><FONT face=3DArial>There's no character in any of today's plastic=
, neon-colored flattened <BR>basketball-cars.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV>I couldn't agree more. Remember the '57 Buick Roadmaster? That was a ca=
r. Today's "Roadmaster" looks like a submarine sandwich, minus the meat.</DI=
V>
<DIV>My guess is GM will probably come out with a new Oldsmobile Starfire in=
 a year or two. I dread to think what materials it will be made of.</DIV>
<DIV>I think we need to invest more money into vocational schools, especiall=
y the design aspect.</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>

- -------------------------------1076945170--

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:04:17 EST
From: JonKrisInc@aol.com
Subject: Re: The New GTO

- -------------------------------1076947457
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 2/16/2004 4:23:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
imp@theriver.com writes:
I mean face it,
the last generation F-body's with the LS1 engine could out accelerate, out 
brake, and out handle just about ANY muscle car. And at the same time pulldown 
25+mpg. In my book thats as good if not better than a muscle car.
True, but after 30+ years of technology, one would hope they'd come this far. 
BUT.... what's missing is the look!  Where's the style? 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. 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?

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

- -------------------------------1076947457
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 4:23:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, imp@ther=
iver.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue=20=
2px solid"><FONT face=3DArial>I mean face it,<BR>the last generation F-body'=
s with the LS1 engine could out accelerate, out brake, and out handle just a=
bout ANY muscle car. And at the same time pulldown 25+mpg. In my book thats=20=
as good if not better than a muscle car.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV>True, but after 30+ years of technology, one would hope they'd come thi=
s far. BUT....&nbsp;what's missing is the look! &nbsp;Where's the style? How=
 many thumbs up are you going to&nbsp;get driving todays sameness.&nbsp;I ju=
st bought my son a '99 TransAm with the LS 1 engine and a six speed. It's a=20=
fun car to drive, but on any given day, it's just one of many like it on the=
 road. My '72 Cutlass Conv. is quite a different story. The older cars are s=
imply better looking, more fun to drive, and, &nbsp;if you DO see another li=
ke it on the road, it's exciting! And isn't that what it's really all about?=
</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>

- -------------------------------1076947457--

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:08:30 -0600
From: "Ian Dixon" <IDixon@sbrc.ca>
Subject: RE: megasquirt?

Joe,

I'm interested to know how long it took you to assemble the MS kit.
Ian



I have two MegaSquirt units (I replaced the one I sold you, Dave) and a
diy-WB02 unit and I have been on the MS yahoo list for almost two years.
Both
my MS units are completed and tested. Now all I have to do is rebuild
the 455
and 350, get the fuel rails fabbed into my Torker and Holley Street
Dominator
manifolds and buy injectors, regulators, throttle bodies, and fuel pumps
(and
misc. hardware).

In the words of the now famous Jesse James of Monster Garage fame, "all
we
left to do now is everything..."

- --
joe vitek 

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:11:36 -0500
From: Doug Ahern <doug.ahern@usg.edu>
Subject: Re: 330 problems

my 64 330 had similar problems a couple years ago.   its a high compression
330, maybe 10.5:1 or so (rebuilt 15 years ago with TRW 10.something:1 pistons),
stock ignition, and an Edelbrock AFB carb.  the car started stuttering
and breaking up at off idle, under load.   I fooled with the fuel
system a while and got nowhere,  a hotter plug recommendation from this list
help a little...  I began to think it was timing, so I played with the
timing and it didn't help much,  I ended up replacing the timing chain 
and distributor (and here and there in trouble shooting, the rest of the 
ignition system).   the chain helped some, the new dist help some too...
after all that, I still had some trouble, so I ended up finding a 
timing/dwell combo that has seemed to work  (I think timing was way 
advanced, and dwell was lowered...)  anyhow!   I attributed it to a high
compression engine that was picky about changes in gasoline quality.  
I drive it a lot, in fact just after I got all that sorted out, my wife
drove it as a daily driver 500 miles a week for about 2-3 months prior to
our adoption of a car payment in '02. my plan is to find and rebuild 
a 350 that will be be friendly to modern gasolines (9:1 pistons that can
do 87,  instead of the obilitory 93 that I run in the 330 now..)... someday..

Doug in Athens, GA

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:55:42 -0500
From: Joe Vitek <joevitek@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: megasquirt?

Ian Dixon wrote:
> 
> Joe,
> 
> I'm interested to know how long it took you to assemble the MS kit.
> Ian

Well, when I actually got to sit down at work (after hours) to put it
together, it only took a coupla hours to solder everything on the board. The
next day, I had to mod the case a little in the shop so the FETs would mount
to the case correctly and allow the cover to fit. At that time, I used a
Bridgeport to mill the holes for the DB-37 and DB-9 connectors. I would say
going from the completed board (2 hours):

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/joevitek/Motorized_Projects/MegaSquirt/MS_board_comp800x600.JPG

To completed assembled case (2 hours more):

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/joevitek/Motorized_Projects/MegaSquirt/MS.JPG

You must keep in mind that a 4 hour completion time from bag of parts to
completed unit is not necessarily typical. I have a lot of experience
soldering and putting things like this together, so I would say double
the soldering time if you are relatively inexperienced. The shop work on the
case is probably longer than all the mechanical guys out there. I am not the
best mechanical fabricator by any stretch of the imagination.

If you left a Saturday open for putting this together, you would not have a
problem getting it done in one day.

Getting it to work the first time is another story (I was lucky to not make
any mistakes). Here is my MS page:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/joevitek/Motorized_Projects/MegaSquirt/MS.htm

Good luck if you take the plunge!

- --
joe vitek (on the banks of the Merrimack River, Concord, New Hampshire)
http://oldsgmail.com/
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/joevitek/index.htm
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/C3carbhackers/
'83 H/O #2981 of 3001
'81 Supreme (to be FE3-X clone MS'ed road racer)
'72 Kawasaki H1 500cc

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:59:38 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: The New GTO

Sean,

> Anyways, the cars of today are supposed to be better because they have
newer
> technology.


It's not better technology, it's just new ways to apply technology and new
ways to apply the laws of physics, which creates that technology. The laws
of physics are still the same, both in 1960 and 2004.

We can't build new Saturn 5 launch vehicles. We can't build new SR-71s. We
can't build new prototypes of the ROVER and NERVA nuclear rocket engines. We
forgot how.

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:16:35 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: The New GTO

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.

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:17:47 -0500
From: "Andrew Geeting" <geeting@woh.rr.com>
Subject: Re: The New GTO

 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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:30:10 -0500
From: "John Nasta" <email@johnnasta.com>
Subject: selling my 1968 Ninety Eight convertible

Well, spring is around the corner and my 1968 Ninety Eight convertible is
still up for sale. It's priced to sell at $5k firm (the web site says
"asking $7k").

http://johnnasta.com/6898/

I have pictures of the interior and one with the top up now. If anybody is
interested, please contact me privately.

Thanks,
John Nasta

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:45:16 -0500
From: "Fred Nissen" <fsnissen@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: The New GTO

> > 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.
>
> Sure you can. There's plenty of guys that have done it....

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

I have to agree with others posts on the style question.  The current
"suppository on wheels" look just does not do it for me.   There are also
some fundamental engineering goofs that keep me out of newer cars.  I may
yet be dragged kicking and screaming into a later B or D car ('91-'92 Custom
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.

Regards,
Fred

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:58:14 -0500
From: Joe Vitek <joevitek@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: The New GTO

"Infinite Space Systems, Inc." wrote:
> Steve hit the estetics and charisma of the '64 to '72 muscle cars. They just
> were, some much more than others.

Admit it. We're old and stuck in our perception of what looks good. I agree
with Milton and SteveH. The look of the late 60s and early 70s musclecars is
beautiful. However, ask asomeone who is 22 y.o. what is considered automotive
beautiful and you will get a different answer.

Anrew Geeting 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.

Exactly. Back in '72, most cars looked like what we cherish today. BUT IT'S 30
YEARS LATER. Like Andrew said, pull a '99 T/A outta the garage in 30 years and
see what kind of response it gets. Looks, oohs, and ahhs all around. A lot of
us in the "musclecars of the 60s" category will be gone. That aforementioned
22 y.o. will say, "Now that's the way cars should be built today." Of course
that aforementioned 22 y.o. is now 52 y.o. and in the same categroy as we are
right now.

> 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.

Screw it, I am old now and I love the 60s and 70s cars. I will 'til I die.
Doesn't mean that the NSX's, 350z's, T/A's, Z06's, Cobra Rustangs, ad nauseum
aren't "musclecars". They rock and, stock to stock, will put up a great fight
with those cars of yesteryear. And do it much longer and more reliably.

> '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.

Definitely. I am glad that that mentality eventually came back with the
aforementioned late model vehicles. It just means that we are not a forgotten
breed. There will be a legion of next generation "muscle" enthusiasts to take
our place when we are gone. I just hope that the history is kept alive through
our "muscle" offspring.

- --
joe vitek (on the banks of the Merrimack River, Concord, New Hampshire)
http://oldsgmail.com/
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/joevitek/index.htm
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/C3carbhackers/
'83 H/O #2981 of 3001
'81 Supreme (to be FE3-X clone MS'ed road racer)
'72 Kawasaki H1 500cc

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:50:51 -0500
From: "Dave Wyatt" <wyattolds@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: The New GTO

As much as I thought the new GTO was a very smooth car and needed a few 
styling cues to remind me it wasn't an overgrown Cavalier, the wife summed 
it up with, "It's just plain."

I would still like to see a less optioned model to appeal to a larger market 
for about 10 grand less.  But if they did that some exec at GM might miss 
his next bonus and little Biff and Buffy might have to go to public school, 
and, and, and...............................

Woops, sorry about that.  Some things with GM (OK most things anymore) are 
just all wrong and I'd like to set them straight.


Dave Wyatt
70  4-4-2
67 Vista Cruiser

_________________________________________________________________
Get some great ideas here for your sweetheart on Valentine's Day - and 
beyond. http://special.msn.com/network/celebrateromance.armx

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:55:49 -0500
From: "Dave Wyatt" <wyattolds@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: 330 problems

Jumping in a little late, but I still run points in the 4-4-2 and have the 
occaisional miss after a bunch of miles.  I can usually drag out the dwell 
meter and find the points have closed up due to a weak spring.  Re-adjust 
the dwell and all is fine for a while.

I ended up back at NAPA where I picked up a set of High Performance points 
from their Blue
Streak(?) line.  They stay adjusted better.


Dave Wyatt
70  4-4-2
67 Vista Cruiser

_________________________________________________________________
Create your own personal Web page with the info you use most, at My MSN. 
http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200364ave/direct/01/

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:10:52 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: The New GTO

Fred, I really like your way with words.


> 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.


Just because technology advances doesn't necessarily mean the technology is
good. The laws of physics still have to apply.

When the F-106, which became the backbone of North American Air Defense
Command, was first introduced, the first 2 or 3 pilots who had to eject were
found dead by USAF SAR missing their legs from the knees down. They had
bleed to death. This was 4-5 years into the F-106's career. It wasn't until
a USAF test pilot was performing a routine flight test on a F-106 after an
engine change when the new engine failed, he ejected over Edwards AFB, and
was recovered alive at the base. There wasn't enough room between the seat
and instrument panel during ejection. The pilot's legs would fly forward and
be cut off at the knees. This pilot survived and could tell what happened. I
met him, in his wheelchair, in Tucson several years ago. The fix was a
simple dual restraining clamp set for the pilot to jam the rear of his boots
into prior to pulling the ejection lever. His feet were then kept from
flying forward under the acceleration from the ejection charge.

It's all the same. Engineering mistakes.

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com

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

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:08:53 -0500
From: "Mike Evans" <mevans@jasnetworks.net>
Subject: Re: The New GTO

As a matter of perspective, my father talks about the '60's and '70's cars
with the same uppitiness that we discuss the new GTO:  "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."

To each his own, I reckon.  Live and let live. ;-)

Mike Evans
Richland, MI
'76 Cutlass S/461
www.time-save.com/cutlass.htm

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew Geeting" <geeting@woh.rr.com>
To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 4:41 AM
Subject: Re: The New GTO


>
> > I don't think you would want to match a stock F-body against a stock '67
> > 435HP 427 'vette L-88 or a stock '66 Dodge or Plymouth factory road
racing
> > package with the 485 HP 426 Hemi. Both vehicles are street legal
packages.
> > The L-88 could be had in a Chevelle or a Camaro, but they didn't have
the
> > 'vette's stopping or handling capability.

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

End of oldsmobile-digest V1 #4778
*********************************
