
oldsmobile-digest     Thursday, January 29 2004     Volume 01 : Number 4758



Re: 1960 super 88
what junk is
Re: Wash. State Junkyard/Olds 64-59
Re: 1960 super 88
Re: Edelbrock O4B
Re: 1960 super 88
Re: what junk is
Re: 1960 super 88
Re: 1960 super 88
04B Manifold
Re: new Ed carb
Re: what junk is
Re: what junk is
Re: 1960 super 88
Re: Edelbrock O4B
ye olde Olds site
Re: Edelbrock O4B
Re: Edelbrock O4B
Re: Kooks Headers for 64-67
Re: what junk is
Re: Rear Springs
TEST
Re: TEST
Re: new Ed carb
Re: Kooks Headers for 64-67

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:20:29 -0500
From: "swanny" <swannys78@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: 1960 super 88

Starter connections? Ignition switch? Bad ground? Spun bearing? Check oil
for filings.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: <Ayashkeefer@aol.com>
To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 3:57 PM
Subject: 1960 super 88


> hey guys,the other day i had the olds running and it shut off.it wouldent
> start up,but the engine would turn over.now when i turn the key,nothing
> happens.when i turn the key to the off position it makes a chicking
noise.where should
> i start looking?thank you,keith in new jersey.
>

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:51:54 -0500
From: "Christopher Witt" <rocketscience442@hotmail.com>
Subject: what junk is

> > Does this look like junk?
> >
> > http://www.allamericanclassics.com/pics/M04745-64dynamic88.jpg
=================
no
that's NOT junk - not even close.

THIS... is junk [almost]:
http://www.442.com/parts/wittpartscar.gif

"look honey, other guys actually drag home worse stuff than I do!"

Yes, I still have that car. It WAS INDEED on the way IN, not to Padnos.
- -----------------------
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

_________________________________________________________________
Rethink your business approach for the new year with the helpful tips here. 
http://special.msn.com/bcentral/prep04.armx

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:24:19 -0500
From: "Peter Berusch" <Berusch@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Wash. State Junkyard/Olds 64-59

  I like the ' 54 CDV next to the 64 Dynamic

> 
> Does this look like junk?
> 
> http://www.allamericanclassics.com/pics/M04745-64dynamic88.jpg
> 
> or this ?
> 
> http://www.allamericanclassics.com/pics/M04667-65olds98.jpg
> 
> or this
> 
> http://www.allamericanclassics.com/pics/N05007-59dynamic88.jpg
> 
> ......got a tissue :(
> Randy H.
> Van.B.C.Can.
> 
> 

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:26:12 +0000
From: Steve Harrison <k0xp@dandy.net>
Subject: Re: 1960 super 88

At 03:57 PM 1/28/2004 EST, you wrote:
>hey guys,the other day i had the olds running and it shut off.it wouldent
>start up,but the engine would turn over.now when i turn the key,nothing
>happens.when i turn the key to the off position it makes a chicking
>noise.where should i start looking?thank you,keith in new jersey. 

Sounds like a dead battery. The clicking noise is the starter solenoid not
quite pulling in due to the very low battery voltage. It may have shut off
due to the battery voltage getting too low to keep it running. Normally,
this wouldn't happen if the alternator were good so this also sounds like
your alternator is dead.

SteveH

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:53:57 EST
From: KS7RACING@aol.com
Subject: Re: Edelbrock O4B

Dan/List,

Looking at the 2 OL4B (small-block) manifolds I have here it would appear 
that there's enough meat in the carb mounting area to mill out the back so the QJ 
would fit OK, and the bolt pattern's there as well (two sets of holes on each 
corner) -- granted, these are not exactly the same intake but I'd check into 
this before trying any spacers

Hope this helps, Take Care!
Ken Snyder
Kansas City, Kansas

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:02:27 -0500
From: John Kelsey <ribspot@pop4.net>
Subject: Re: 1960 super 88

swanny wrote:
> Starter connections? Ignition switch? Bad ground? Spun bearing? Check oil
> for filings.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Ayashkeefer@aol.com>
> To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 3:57 PM
> Subject: 1960 super 88
> 
> 
> 
>>hey guys,the other day i had the olds running and it shut off.it wouldent
>>start up,but the engine would turn over.now when i turn the key,nothing
>>happens.when i turn the key to the off position it makes a chicking
> 
> noise.where should
> 
>>i start looking?thank you,keith in new jersey.
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Keith,
    I may be confused here but a noise when you turn the key off sounds 
like a relay of some type kicking out. I would start by finding out why 
it won't crank. That means following current from the battery to the 
starter thru the selinoid. Once you get it to cranking if it still won't 
start then remember you need spark, fuel and air to get it to fire and 
you need them all at the proper time (timing gears etc)
LOL
John Kelsey
Dayton Ohio

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:11:41 -0500
From: "ron fama" <77w30442@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: what junk is

  looks better than some of the cars i refused to part with.
  ron
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: "Christopher Witt" <rocketscience442@hotmail.com>
  To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
  Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 5:51 PM
  Subject: what junk is


  > > > Does this look like junk?
  > > >
  > > > http://www.allamericanclassics.com/pics/M04745-64dynamic88.jpg
  > =================
  > no
  > that's NOT junk - not even close.
  > 
  > THIS... is junk [almost]:
  > http://www.442.com/parts/wittpartscar.gif
  > 
  > "look honey, other guys actually drag home worse stuff than I do!"
  > 
  > Yes, I still have that car. It WAS INDEED on the way IN, not to Padnos.
  > -----------------------
  > 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
  > 
  > _________________________________________________________________
  > Rethink your business approach for the new year with the helpful tips here. 
  > http://special.msn.com/bcentral/prep04.armx
  > 
  > 

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:33:16 -0500
From: John Kelsey <ribspot@pop4.net>
Subject: Re: 1960 super 88

Steve Harrison wrote:
> At 03:57 PM 1/28/2004 EST, you wrote:
> 
>>hey guys,the other day i had the olds running and it shut off.it wouldent
>>start up,but the engine would turn over.now when i turn the key,nothing
>>happens.when i turn the key to the off position it makes a chicking
>>noise.where should i start looking?thank you,keith in new jersey. 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a dead battery. The clicking noise is the starter solenoid not
> quite pulling in due to the very low battery voltage. It may have shut off
> due to the battery voltage getting too low to keep it running. Normally,
> this wouldn't happen if the alternator were good so this also sounds like
> your alternator is dead.
> 
> SteveH
> 
> 
> 
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't 63 the first year for alternators in 
GM vehicles?
John Kelsey
Dayton Ohio

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:53:52 +0000
From: Steve Harrison <k0xp@dandy.net>
Subject: Re: 1960 super 88

At 07:33 PM 1/28/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't 63 the first year for alternators in 
>GM vehicles?

Probly; upon which case if I'd noticed the year, I would have said
"generator". But further reflection on his symptoms don't match what I
described, so I'll crawl back in the woodwork  ;o|

SteveH

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:27:28 EST
From: R4C442@aol.com
Subject: 04B Manifold

- --part1_17.41d156db.2d49bb80_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hey List,
       Just browsing and I noticed somebody had recently acquired an 
Edelbrock 04B manifold for their 455. I erased the message and can't recall who it was 
but if whomever it was reads this, remember that an 04B will NOT fit with an 
HEI distributor unless you do some very creative modifications (just in case 
you installed one).

                                                         Ron Forsee
                                                         65-442 Original 
Owner

- --part1_17.41d156db.2d49bb80_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">Hey List,<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Just browsing and I noticed somebody ha=
d recently acquired an Edelbrock 04B manifold for their 455. I erased the me=
ssage and can't recall who it was but if whomever it was reads this, remembe=
r that an 04B will NOT fit with an HEI distributor unless you do some very c=
reative modifications (just in case you installed one).<BR>
<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;   =20=
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =20=
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =20=
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;   Ron Forsee<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;   =20=
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =20=
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =20=
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;   65-442 Original Owner</FONT></HTML>

- --part1_17.41d156db.2d49bb80_boundary--

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 01:35:18 +0000
From: Steve Harrison <k0xp@dandy.net>
Subject: Re: new Ed carb

At 11:06 AM 1/28/2004 -0300, you wrote:
>In the meantime the 260 running lean

How do you know it's running lean?

>with no TCC working gave me 12,5mpg in the city driving.

This is an '81, right? Just had a peek at the '81 CSM and was surprised to
note that the Cutlass Supreme with 4.3L (260) LV8 V8 engine should have a
TH350C tranny; but a Cutlass Cruiser wagon with the 260 should have a
TH200C. Strange.

>I gues is still too much, I would expect at least 16mpg to be happy 
>with a so slow moving car... anyway, too lean is not good, I think a
>good mixture could be better on mpg?

Yes, 12.5 sounds pretty low but if the engine is really tired, that would
explain both the mileage and lack of power. Check your ignition timing;
should be 18 degrees at 1100 rpm with the computer in diagnostic mode. This
is done by shorting the two terminals on the extreme right side of the
six-terminal ALCL connector (not ALDL; that name came later but not in
'81). This will cause the computer to not control the ignition timing, so
that the timing is provided only by the distributor itself.

Have you checked the dwell by connecting a dwell meter to the green
connector located in front of the carburetor? You can also use an ordinary
voltmeter but would have to estimate the dwell; let me know if you need
that info. Your dwell should be as close to 30 degrees as possible under
all driving conditions except WOT.

>OTOH has anybody a carb for the 81 260 engine? PN 17081150. Chris Witt
>maybe?

Those 2-bbl carbs are REALLY easy to rebuild although you do need to obtain
the Thexton tools to both set the adjustments, and to make the adjustments.
You can get by without the gages but it won't be easy. You can use a pair
of good longnose pliers to do the adjustment of the special D and double-D
screws but that, too, won't be easy and you may mess up the screwheads.

Also, plugged EGR passages could be severely hampering the engine. These
are the two tubes that you see at the bottom of the intake manifold right
underneath the carb's barrels. The tubes should be clear and open but they
usually jam with carbon after 60K to 100K miles.

In addition to all that, your catalytic converter may also be plugged. A
new cat or "test pipe" would probably make a world of difference in your
mileage and performance.

The '81 CSM says your R46SX plugs should be gapped at 0.08" but GM later
reduced that gap to 0.06"; you might try that.

I'm really surprised that a fully-emissioned 260 Cutlass made it down to
Chile; What's the first part of the VIN, was it made in the US or where??

SteveH

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:01:56 -0500
From: "Dan Roethel" <droethel@rogers.com>
Subject: Re: what junk is

> THIS... is junk [almost]:
> http://www.442.com/parts/wittpartscar.gif

Looks like a fixer upper to me. A little hammering here and there to
straighten things out, a little body filler to smooth things out and presto
chango you have a show car. If you drink enough beer you can do anything!

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:30:00 -0500
From: "John Orr" <olds330@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: what junk is

   
   what that is, is a crime!!!!
john 
67 cutlass supreme
tampa 

> Subject: Re: what junk is
>
> > THIS... is junk [almost]:
> > http://www.442.com/parts/wittpartscar.gif
>
> Looks like a fixer upper to me. A little hammering here and there to
> straighten things out, a little body filler to smooth things out and
presto
> chango you have a show car. If you drink enough beer you can do anything!
>

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:36:35 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: 1960 super 88

Keith,

It sounds like a shorted out starter and/or solenoid. Snow slush and road
salt could have nailed it, or it might only be normal wear & tear.

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com


- ----- Original Message -----
From: <Ayashkeefer@aol.com>
To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 1:57 PM
Subject: 1960 super 88


> hey guys,the other day i had the olds running and it shut off.it wouldent
> start up,but the engine would turn over.now when i turn the key,nothing
> happens.when i turn the key to the off position it makes a chicking
noise.where should
> i start looking?thank you,keith in new jersey.
>

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:09:43 -0500
From: "W-Machines" <W-Machines@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Edelbrock O4B

No difference in performance.  Does your intake have 8 holes for the carb.
I believe it does.  You could mill out the holley area using a Q-jet gasket
as your template.  The other alternative is to call summit and tell them you
need a square bore to spread bore adapter.  They sell them.  Only thing is
that is will raise the carb about an inch off the intake.
regards Mark
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Roethel" <droethel@rogers.com>
To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 12:59 AM
Subject: Re: Edelbrock O4B


>
>
> > You have a square bore intake that takes Holley carbs.  You can buy a an
> > adapter plate that goes from square bore to spread bore.  Spread bore is
> > what a Q-jet is.  I put a spread bore O4B intake on my 72 Olds 98 back
in
> August.  Looks great.
> > regards
> > WMACHINES (Mark Prince)
> > check out the new March 2004 Popular Hot Rodding
> Mark, any suggestions on where to get the adapter plate? Is there any
> difference in performance between the spreadbore and square bore intakes?
> Should I look for a spreadbore manifold or would I be better off with a
new
> Holley carb?
> Dan
>
>

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:22:35 -0500
From: "John Nasta" <email@johnnasta.com>
Subject: ye olde Olds site

I get lots of mail asking what happened to the information on my Olds site.
It's all still there. Just go here:

http://johnnasta.com/6898/resources/

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 23:24:28 -0500
From: "Dan Roethel" <droethel@rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Edelbrock O4B

> No difference in performance.  Does your intake have 8 holes for the carb.
> I believe it does.  You could mill out the holley area using a Q-jet
gasket
> as your template.  The other alternative is to call summit and tell them
you
> need a square bore to spread bore adapter.  They sell them.  Only thing is
> that is will raise the carb about an inch off the intake.
> regards Mark
Thanks Mark, my intake has 8 holes. I looked at it and yes it could be
milled to clear the big bores of the Qjet. I have to see what my budget will
allow.
What type of distributor do you have on your car? HEI apparently will not
fit with out modifications.
Dan

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 04:52:42 +0000
From: Steve Harrison <k0xp@dandy.net>
Subject: Re: Edelbrock O4B

At 11:09 PM 1/28/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>No difference in performance.  Does your intake have 8 holes for the carb.
>I believe it does.  You could mill out the holley area using a Q-jet gasket
>as your template.  The other alternative is to call summit and tell them you
>need a square bore to spread bore adapter.  They sell them.  Only thing is
>that is will raise the carb about an inch off the intake.

There used to be an adapter for this that was a cast aluminum plate about
1/2" thick, available back in the olden days. I believe it adapted a
spreadbore to squarebore and used four flathead screws to attach to the
manifold. There were studs provided for the spreadbore. Used to have a few
and have seen them in Yardes from time to time. Wanta say they were made by
Mr. Gasket but can't recall for sure now.

Same company had lotsa other adapters like 4-barrel carb to 2-barrel
manifold, and even 2-bbl carbs to 1-bbl manifolds for I6s.

SteveH

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:27:44 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: Kooks Headers for 64-67

Andrew, Pat, & List,



> Here's a pic of the Bulldog heads:
> http://www.mjproformance.com/OLDSHEADEX2.jpg


That explains a lot. The headers are set up to be compatable with the
Bulldog heads and still be able to work with stock rectangular port heads.

I called Nick Filippides at KOOK'S Headers to get the straight story. He
owed me a straight answer after I came to his defense from Strange Magic's
typing finger on Real Olds Power. I got into a running gunfight with Strange
over that. What a piece of work.

Admittedly, Nick jogged my memory about something I forgot about, because we
did it differently than now, and I forgot why.

In any engine, there are 2 areas where reversion can occur. The first is on
the intake side. Intake reversion is the liquid gas separating out of the
air/fuel mass and trying to flow back up into the intake manifold during cam
overlap, with latent exhaust gas pushing it. We had 2 ways to prevent that.
Miss-match the intake ports so that a small lip on the intake manifold would
stick out into the head port to block liquid gas from climbing the port wall
and sneaking into the intake manifold. The walls of the head intake passage
were left rough or roughened to cause turbulence to make sure there would be
no liquid gas to fall out of the air/fuel mass stream. The miss-matched
ports also caused turbulence, to further improve air/fuel mixing.

The second is on the exhaust side, exhaust gases trying to flow back into
the cylinder on the start of the intake stroke, again during an overlap
condition. We never liked any miss-match to stop this reversion action. By
using a larger exhaust valve to more fully exhaust the cylinder, there was
much less spent exhaust gas to be pulled back into the cylinder. Also, more
duration on the exhaust cam lobe would give more volume to remove exhaust
gases. Finally, by precisely matching the exhaust port with the header port
for a very smooth dynamic flow, regardless of the affects of the sharp bend
of the header primary tube coming off of the header flange, and by correct
shaping of the exhaust port, an Air Flow Research specialty, the exhaust gas
flow was rapid and centered in the exhaust port, giving very high velocity
into the header and exhaust system, maximizing cylinder scavenging.

That's exactly how we dealt with exhaust gas side reversion. It always
worked extremely well.

Apparently, it seems many people now handle reversion by installing
reversion dampening plates and devices in headers and head ports to block
reversion. KOOK'S purposely made the header port round so the header port
miss-matched a rectangular head exit port to block exhaust gas reversion and
prevent exhaust gases from going back into the cylinder. I don't like that
way of doing it. To me, it's too simple to rely on, but gives turbulence and
doesn't boost the exhaust gas velocity enough when the exhaust gases exit
the head port. I want to keep the exhaust velocity up very high, for best
scavenging and shoving the exhaust gases away from the head rapidly. I'm
afraid there wouldn't be enough exiting velocity with this KOOK'S header.

Nick says it's not a problem, and he may have a point. With typical Olds 2
1/16" intake valves and an exhaust valve not any bigger than 1.71", that
could be true. But with an intake valve limited to 2.0" to 2.02" and a 1.75"
or 1.77" exhaust valve, coupled to a very nice dual pattern cam with much
more exhaust duration, I don't believe it applies anymore. Those items allow
much more complete exhausting of spent gases from the cylinder

Finally, it *is* easier to weld in round primary tubes to a header flange,
than trying to turn a round tube into a square port. That would decrease the
cost to build the header. However, I'm not sold on the idea, yet. As far as
Thunder is concerned, I don't think this particular set of headers would
work right with the way her heads are set up.

Thunder's heads have exhaust exit ports 1 15/16" by 1 1/2", which is the
exact size of a Mr. gasket exhaust gasket. That actually gives a
crossectional area of 2.91 square inches. Her Headers-by-Ed are only 1 3/4"
O.D. primaries, with the primaries swaged up to meet the head exit port
exactly. But the inside diameter of the header primary is only 1 5/8", which
gives a crossectional area of 2.07 square inches. That means there is a
positive pressure increase and a velocity increase, with high kinetic energy
intensity, inside the primary tube, creating a very high vacuum suction
affect on the cylinder during the exhaust stroke, giving a tremendous
exhaust scavenging affect. With KOOK'S new header with a 2" O.D. completely
round primary, the corners of Thunder's head exit port will be blocked off.
Draw a 1 7/8" circle, the inside diameter of the KOOK'S primary, and place
Thunder's exhaust port size on top of it. The corners are blocked. That will
create turbulence on the head side. True, on the header side, there will be
an area along each port wall that would block reversion, but the corners are
still blocked.

Again, remember that Thunder's headers match the head port exactly, giving a
smooth transition.

The inside crossectional area of the KOOK'S 2" O.D., 1 7/8" I.D. primary
tube is 2.76 square inches. That doesn't give enough of a velocity boost.
That's why the 2" primary Hookers I ran on the first 2 engines were not
right. I didn't have enough velocity inside the header primary tube for
proper scavenging. But the Hookers were head exit port matched, while the
KOOK'S won't be, with the corners of the head exit port clipped off. That
would boost the exit velocity, if the turbulence created doesn't interfere
with the port velocity, which it will. How much interference, I don't know.
For a stock or street performance engine, maybe it doesn't matter. For a
really built engine, I'm uncomfortable with the header port design, round to
rectangular.

For the Bulldog heads, the KOOK'S headers match the head exit ports, or at
least it looks like they do. So, is that an automatic functional advantage
to the Bulldog heads with these headers?

I've got to think about this problem for a long, long time.

If someone sees any errors in my thought process, rattle my cage.

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 01:19:23 -0500
From: "Hurst Olds" <hurstolds@planetc.com>
Subject: Re: what junk is

Heh heh... isn't that the one that was literally buried Chris?

Can't say much... I've had cars that I still DROVE that looked almost that
bad...
My '80 Datsun 210 for instance:
http://www.442spot.com/cpierce/misc/datsun-bad-right.jpg
http://www.442spot.com/cpierce/misc/datsun-bad-left.jpg

and it wasn't even as desireable a car as that Cutlass :-)
By the time I sold (yes I actually finally sold it to a guy for 40 bucks)
reverse was out of it and my krylon paint job was starting to fade.  Note
the mis-matched tail-lights :-) was like that when I got it.  Strangely it
turned up missing from where he parked it later... evidentally the city
thought it was a joke... because the car later showed up in the local EMS
training center after a thorough demonstration of the Jaws of Life.

> > THIS... is junk [almost]:
> > http://www.442.com/parts/wittpartscar.gif
>
> Looks like a fixer upper to me. A little hammering here and there to
> straighten things out, a little body filler to smooth things out and
presto
> chango you have a show car. If you drink enough beer you can do anything!
>

Later...
Clayton Pierce,
hurstolds@planetc.com
1969 Cutlass S Holiday Coupe
1979 Hurst/Olds W30 (white/gold)
1979 Cutlass Supreme Coupe
1984 Cutlass Calais Coupe
1985 Delta 88 Royale Brougham Coupe

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 01:10:39 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: Rear Springs

Kevin,

I've been too busy.

'68 to '72 A-body rear springs,
same spring type:

MOOG 5409
'68 442 coupe and convertible
('69 442 not listed)
load height = 7.500"
load = 849 pounds
load rate = 140 punds per inch
free height = 13.539"

MOOG 5401
'69 V8 coupe, except 442
load height = 7.500"
load = 726 pounds
load rate = 128 pounds per inch
free height = 13.159"

MOOG 5379
'69 V8 4 door sedan
load height = 8.500"
load = 759 pounds
load rate = 121 pounds per inch
free height = 14.768"

MOOG 6321
'69 V8 4 door hardtop sedan
load height = 8.500"
load = 688 pounds
load rate = 118 pounds per inch
free height = 14.300"

MOOG 6319
'69 V8 convertible, except 442
and Cutlass Supreme coupe
load height = 9.000"
load = 616 pounds
load rate = 118 pounds per inch
free height = 14.183"

MOOG 5399
'69 V8 standard station wagon
load height = 9.000"
load = 850 pounds
load rate = 166 pounds per inch
free height = 14.104"

MOOG 5411
'69 V8 6 passenger Vista Cruiser
load height = 9.000"
load = 984 pounds
load rate = 161 pounds per inch
free height = 15.112"

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:04:02 -0500
From: "Paul Tumolo" <ptumolo@comcast.net>
Subject: TEST

Paul Tumolo

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:17:17 -0500
From: "JOHN ORR" <jorr@paylessequipment.com>
Subject: Re: TEST

Looks good to me Paul.
john 
67 cutlass supreme...


 TEST


> 
> 
> Paul Tumolo
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:57:35 -0300
From: "Tour Op & Travel Agency Trade 2000" <travelchile@manquehue.net>
Subject: Re: new Ed carb

Hi Steve, thanks for your time!
1. I have an air/fuel ratio meter conected to the oxy sond, so I just read
the A/F on it. Runs lean ( very lean, nothing on the meter ) at idle and
starts to show richer mixture as the PW opens, means with more gas, getting
quite rich at WOT.
2. It would be nice to have the TH350C => it should be stronger.
3. I've read the ignition should be at 10. Are you sure about the 18?
4. I still dont find the ALCL conector :-(
5. The E2mc carb was not working at all, I have now a Dualjet of unknown
origin, but overhauled and working. Sniffer test gives 0.1% of CO and 200ppm
of HC. The E2MC was giving better numbers at idle 0.1 and 80 but was off at
2500rpm 7-8 of CO and 600 HC ppm. BTW - is it E2MC or E2ME i shoul have? I'm
looking for one - PN 17081150. The one I have was modified to work without
the MCS - guess with what luck!
6. W've made the tools to set the WOT and idle regulation - one is
rectangular the other is a small Allen.
7. No cat at all - double exhaust 2 1/2" with H tube and hi po mufflers -
WAITING FOR THE 468! It won't be tomorrow anyway...
8. The green connector close to the carb shows variable Dwell % but the MCS
will not move at all inside the carb
I still dont decide what will I do with this car - keep it stock or
transform it to the the pre smog car, with a classic vacuum HEI, no EGR, no
ECU... I only need to have a good sniffer test, very easy - 4,5% of CO max
and less than 800ppm HC - even my high CR 355ci/350HP runs within this norm
with no any problem!
Thanks for this info - makes better my understanding of the car.
BTW, if the EGR is blocked there should be no exh gases in the intake, what
would suggest a better mpg?
rgds
Matt

> >In the meantime the 260 running lean
> How do you know it's running lean?
> >with no TCC working gave me 12,5mpg in the city driving.
> >I gues is still too much, I would expect at least 16mpg to be happy
> >with a so slow moving car... anyway, too lean is not good, I think a
> >good mixture could be better on mpg?
>
> Yes, 12.5 sounds pretty low but if the engine is really tired, that would
> explain both the mileage and lack of power. Check your ignition timing;
> should be 18 degrees at 1100 rpm with the computer in diagnostic mode.
This
> is done by shorting the two terminals on the extreme right side of the
> six-terminal ALCL connector (not ALDL; that name came later but not in
> '81). This will cause the computer to not control the ignition timing, so
> that the timing is provided only by the distributor itself.
>
> Have you checked the dwell by connecting a dwell meter to the green
> connector located in front of the carburetor? You can also use an ordinary
> voltmeter but would have to estimate the dwell; let me know if you need
> that info. Your dwell should be as close to 30 degrees as possible under
> all driving conditions except WOT.
>
> >OTOH has anybody a carb for the 81 260 engine? PN 17081150. Chris Witt
> >maybe?
>
> Those 2-bbl carbs are REALLY easy to rebuild although you do need to
obtain
> the Thexton tools to both set the adjustments, and to make the
adjustments.
> You can get by without the gages but it won't be easy. You can use a pair
> of good longnose pliers to do the adjustment of the special D and double-D
> screws but that, too, won't be easy and you may mess up the screwheads.
>
> Also, plugged EGR passages could be severely hampering the engine. These
> are the two tubes that you see at the bottom of the intake manifold right
> underneath the carb's barrels. The tubes should be clear and open but they
> usually jam with carbon after 60K to 100K miles.
>
> In addition to all that, your catalytic converter may also be plugged. A
> new cat or "test pipe" would probably make a world of difference in your
> mileage and performance.
>
> The '81 CSM says your R46SX plugs should be gapped at 0.08" but GM later
> reduced that gap to 0.06"; you might try that.
>
> I'm really surprised that a fully-emissioned 260 Cutlass made it down to
> Chile; What's the first part of the VIN, was it made in the US or where??
>
> SteveH
>

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:10:08 -0500
From: "swanny" <swannys78@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Kooks Headers for 64-67

Milton, that was some interesting thinking. What you said about stock or
street use of KOOK'S headers it probably wouldn't matter. If the quality of
a KOOK'S headers are better than average, then they would make a great
header for those of us appreciate driving to car show's instead of race
tracks. But I believe what you're saying about use in racing. The fastest
and easier you discharge spent gasses out of your motor, the easier the
engine can breathe in more fresh air. Making a healthy engine use all the
horsepower / torque to get you as fast as you can down the 1/4 is  the
logical thing.

Milton, is that the correct time you thought of this? 1:29 am?
I was reading my eyelids at that time....

Regards; Pat.




- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 1:27 AM
Subject: Re: Kooks Headers for 64-67


> Andrew, Pat, & List,
>
>
>
> > Here's a pic of the Bulldog heads:
> > http://www.mjproformance.com/OLDSHEADEX2.jpg
>
>
> That explains a lot. The headers are set up to be compatable with the
> Bulldog heads and still be able to work with stock rectangular port heads.
>
> I called Nick Filippides at KOOK'S Headers to get the straight story. He
> owed me a straight answer after I came to his defense from Strange Magic's
> typing finger on Real Olds Power. I got into a running gunfight with
Strange
> over that. What a piece of work.
>
> Admittedly, Nick jogged my memory about something I forgot about, because
we
> did it differently than now, and I forgot why.
>
> In any engine, there are 2 areas where reversion can occur. The first is
on
> the intake side. Intake reversion is the liquid gas separating out of the
> air/fuel mass and trying to flow back up into the intake manifold during
cam
> overlap, with latent exhaust gas pushing it. We had 2 ways to prevent
that.
> Miss-match the intake ports so that a small lip on the intake manifold
would
> stick out into the head port to block liquid gas from climbing the port
wall
> and sneaking into the intake manifold. The walls of the head intake
passage
> were left rough or roughened to cause turbulence to make sure there would
be
> no liquid gas to fall out of the air/fuel mass stream. The miss-matched
> ports also caused turbulence, to further improve air/fuel mixing.
>
> The second is on the exhaust side, exhaust gases trying to flow back into
> the cylinder on the start of the intake stroke, again during an overlap
> condition. We never liked any miss-match to stop this reversion action. By
> using a larger exhaust valve to more fully exhaust the cylinder, there was
> much less spent exhaust gas to be pulled back into the cylinder. Also,
more
> duration on the exhaust cam lobe would give more volume to remove exhaust
> gases. Finally, by precisely matching the exhaust port with the header
port
> for a very smooth dynamic flow, regardless of the affects of the sharp
bend
> of the header primary tube coming off of the header flange, and by correct
> shaping of the exhaust port, an Air Flow Research specialty, the exhaust
gas
> flow was rapid and centered in the exhaust port, giving very high velocity
> into the header and exhaust system, maximizing cylinder scavenging.
>
> That's exactly how we dealt with exhaust gas side reversion. It always
> worked extremely well.
>
> Apparently, it seems many people now handle reversion by installing
> reversion dampening plates and devices in headers and head ports to block
> reversion. KOOK'S purposely made the header port round so the header port
> miss-matched a rectangular head exit port to block exhaust gas reversion
and
> prevent exhaust gases from going back into the cylinder. I don't like that
> way of doing it. To me, it's too simple to rely on, but gives turbulence
and
> doesn't boost the exhaust gas velocity enough when the exhaust gases exit
> the head port. I want to keep the exhaust velocity up very high, for best
> scavenging and shoving the exhaust gases away from the head rapidly. I'm
> afraid there wouldn't be enough exiting velocity with this KOOK'S header.
>
> Nick says it's not a problem, and he may have a point. With typical Olds 2
> 1/16" intake valves and an exhaust valve not any bigger than 1.71", that
> could be true. But with an intake valve limited to 2.0" to 2.02" and a
1.75"
> or 1.77" exhaust valve, coupled to a very nice dual pattern cam with much
> more exhaust duration, I don't believe it applies anymore. Those items
allow
> much more complete exhausting of spent gases from the cylinder
>
> Finally, it *is* easier to weld in round primary tubes to a header flange,
> than trying to turn a round tube into a square port. That would decrease
the
> cost to build the header. However, I'm not sold on the idea, yet. As far
as
> Thunder is concerned, I don't think this particular set of headers would
> work right with the way her heads are set up.
>
> Thunder's heads have exhaust exit ports 1 15/16" by 1 1/2", which is the
> exact size of a Mr. gasket exhaust gasket. That actually gives a
> crossectional area of 2.91 square inches. Her Headers-by-Ed are only 1
3/4"
> O.D. primaries, with the primaries swaged up to meet the head exit port
> exactly. But the inside diameter of the header primary is only 1 5/8",
which
> gives a crossectional area of 2.07 square inches. That means there is a
> positive pressure increase and a velocity increase, with high kinetic
energy
> intensity, inside the primary tube, creating a very high vacuum suction
> affect on the cylinder during the exhaust stroke, giving a tremendous
> exhaust scavenging affect. With KOOK'S new header with a 2" O.D.
completely
> round primary, the corners of Thunder's head exit port will be blocked
off.
> Draw a 1 7/8" circle, the inside diameter of the KOOK'S primary, and place
> Thunder's exhaust port size on top of it. The corners are blocked. That
will
> create turbulence on the head side. True, on the header side, there will
be
> an area along each port wall that would block reversion, but the corners
are
> still blocked.
>
> Again, remember that Thunder's headers match the head port exactly, giving
a
> smooth transition.
>
> The inside crossectional area of the KOOK'S 2" O.D., 1 7/8" I.D. primary
> tube is 2.76 square inches. That doesn't give enough of a velocity boost.
> That's why the 2" primary Hookers I ran on the first 2 engines were not
> right. I didn't have enough velocity inside the header primary tube for
> proper scavenging. But the Hookers were head exit port matched, while the
> KOOK'S won't be, with the corners of the head exit port clipped off. That
> would boost the exit velocity, if the turbulence created doesn't interfere
> with the port velocity, which it will. How much interference, I don't
know.
> For a stock or street performance engine, maybe it doesn't matter. For a
> really built engine, I'm uncomfortable with the header port design, round
to
> rectangular.
>
> For the Bulldog heads, the KOOK'S headers match the head exit ports, or at
> least it looks like they do. So, is that an automatic functional advantage
> to the Bulldog heads with these headers?
>
> I've got to think about this problem for a long, long time.
>
> If someone sees any errors in my thought process, rattle my cage.
>
> Milton Schick
> 1964 442 Cutlass
> imp@theriver.com
>
>
>

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

End of oldsmobile-digest V1 #4758
*********************************
