
oldsmobile-digest      Tuesday, January 20 2004      Volume 01 : Number 4748



RE: 70 442 conv in movie
Re: 70 442 conv in movie
Re: Non FI 371 comes to life AGAIN!
Olds Fuel Injection, was 455 FI....
Re: Olds Fuel Injection, was 455 FI....
Re: Olds Fuel Injection, was 455 FI....
Re: Olds Fuel Injection, was 455 FI....
Seville Intake
Re: Seville Intake
Re: Olds Fuel Injection, was 455 FI....
Re: What We New Englanders Will Put Up With To Get Another Engine ;o)
Re: Seville Intake
Re: Olds Fuel Injection, was 455 FI....
Re: Seville Intake
3.1, 3.4, 3.8 intake leaks
Re: 455 Fuel Injection?
Re: 455 Fuel Injection?
question on a non-Olds motor....
Re: oh my God I hate brakes
Re: Olds Fuel Injection, was 455 FI....
Re: question on a non-Olds motor....
Re: Olds Fuel Injection, was 455 FI....
Re: question on a non-Olds motor....
Re: question on a non-Olds motor....
Re: question on a non-Olds motor....
Re: new MC Re: oh my God I hate brakes
81CS blues...
need someone to post a picture for me .....
Re: need someone to post a picture for me .....
Last chance 350 nodular CRANK $25 plus shipping

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

Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:30:54 -0500
From: "Erwin Mendoza" <olds6887442@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: 70 442 conv in movie

The car gets plenty of air-time, but unfortunately as the movie goes 
along................the car gets trashed along the way :( I think it looks 
pretty cool with the H/O scoop



Erwin Mendoza
OCA# 29671
Rallye 350 Chapter(gone but not forgotten)
87 442 (gone as of 10/02/03)
68 442
Edison, NJ
mailto:olds6887442@hotmail.com





>From: jayandcindy@webtv.net (Jay and Cindy Bognar)
>Reply-To: oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca
>To: oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca
>Subject: 70 442 conv in movie
>Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:20:43 -0800 (PST)
>
>Anybody see a movie called Black Cat Run?  Starts with a kid who races a
>70 442 conv. with W30 stripes and  a 69 H/O hood.  Don't have time to
>see the rest.  Anyone know the car or know if there is more of it seen
>in the movie?
>Jay B
>72 CS 455
>95 Aurora
>

_________________________________________________________________
Let the new MSN Premium Internet Software make the most of your high-speed 
experience. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1

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

Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:39:50 -0500
From: "ron fama" <77w30442@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: 70 442 conv in movie

  where at in edison are you from.
  did you see the 72 cutlass coin got for 600.00 in great shape
  ron
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: "Erwin Mendoza" <olds6887442@hotmail.com>
  To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
  Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 8:30 PM
  Subject: RE: 70 442 conv in movie


  > The car gets plenty of air-time, but unfortunately as the movie goes 
  > along................the car gets trashed along the way :( I think it looks 
  > pretty cool with the H/O scoop
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > Erwin Mendoza
  > OCA# 29671
  > Rallye 350 Chapter(gone but not forgotten)
  > 87 442 (gone as of 10/02/03)
  > 68 442
  > Edison, NJ
  > mailto:olds6887442@hotmail.com
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > >From: jayandcindy@webtv.net (Jay and Cindy Bognar)
  > >Reply-To: oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca
  > >To: oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca
  > >Subject: 70 442 conv in movie
  > >Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:20:43 -0800 (PST)
  > >
  > >Anybody see a movie called Black Cat Run?  Starts with a kid who races a
  > >70 442 conv. with W30 stripes and  a 69 H/O hood.  Don't have time to
  > >see the rest.  Anyone know the car or know if there is more of it seen
  > >in the movie?
  > >Jay B
  > >72 CS 455
  > >95 Aurora
  > >
  > 
  > _________________________________________________________________
  > Let the new MSN Premium Internet Software make the most of your high-speed 
  > experience. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1
  > 
  > 

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

Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:46:51 -0500
From: "ftfunnyfarm" <ftfunnyfarm@voyager.net>
Subject: Re: Non FI 371 comes to life AGAIN!

wahooooooooooooooooooooo....

Damn that looks nice....I just love the look of a freshly painted motor!!

I bet that baby is gonna just fly!!!

Tami

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

Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:22:38 -0500
From: King V <king_v@mindless.com>
Subject: Olds Fuel Injection, was 455 FI....

You know, all this talk of fuel injection has me wondering....

Now, when they had the Olds 350 FI for the Seville, I'm sure that quite a
bit of expense went into research and development, fabricating the
machinery for producing the parts, etc.

But once 1980 came and went, suddenly Olds smallblock FI was gone.

I would have thought that they might have decided to continue to offer such
a setup, perhaps with further and further refinement, for the Olds 260 and
307 in the 1980s.

You gotta figure, they were going through all sorts of hoops trying to pass
emissions and fuel economy standards, why not just use the system that
already exists?  I'm sure improvments could've come about by tweaking
things here and there, evolutionary steps.

So why didn't they?  I mean, of the engines in the 300 cubic inch range,
the 307 produced the most bottom end torque.  Experience of some listers
indicates a better cam would've helped, but surely the multiport injection
could've helped boost power a bit as well as help make emissions easier to
pass.

Seems like an opportunity they threw away.


	- Joe Vahabzadeh

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

Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:58:52 -0500
From: "Andrew Geeting" <geeting@woh.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Olds Fuel Injection, was 455 FI....

Actually they did experiment with a TBI system for the 307.

Here's evidence of the intake:

http://home.att.net/~oldsranch/307fi1.jpg

http://home.att.net/~oldsranch/intakeport.jpg

http://home.att.net/~oldsranch/307fi2.jpg

These pics belong to Dave Worthington.

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


> So why didn't they?  I mean, of the engines in the 300 cubic inch range,
> the 307 produced the most bottom end torque.  Experience of some listers
> indicates a better cam would've helped, but surely the multiport injection
> could've helped boost power a bit as well as help make emissions easier to
> pass.
>
> Seems like an opportunity they threw away.
>
>
> - Joe Vahabzadeh
>
>

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 05:28:56 +0000
From: Steve Harrison <k0xp@dandy.net>
Subject: Re: Olds Fuel Injection, was 455 FI....

At 11:58 PM 1/19/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>Actually they did experiment with a TBI system for the 307.
>
>Here's evidence of the intake:
>
>http://home.att.net/~oldsranch/307fi1.jpg
>
>http://home.att.net/~oldsranch/intakeport.jpg
>
>http://home.att.net/~oldsranch/307fi2.jpg
>
>These pics belong to Dave Worthington.

Those ports sure look similar in size to those in the dinky A5.....  ;o\

Dave, any inkling of an idea when those manifolds were developed?? They're
aluminum, right? With those port sizes, I wonder if they weren't developed
while they were doing the roller-cam 307 development....  ?8-|

SteveH

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 04:23:33 -0500
From: "Fred Nissen" <fsnissen@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Olds Fuel Injection, was 455 FI....

> Those ports sure look similar in size to those in the dinky A5.....  ;o\
>
> Dave, any inkling of an idea when those manifolds were developed?? They're
> aluminum, right? With those port sizes, I wonder if they weren't developed
> while they were doing the roller-cam 307 development....  ?

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

Yes.  Shortly thereafter, GM's corporate "management" decided that the rest
of their development and tooling money for RWD V8 engines would be spent on
the cheaper to manufacture Chebby V8.  As we know, the Olds V8's control
system got incremental improvements in the '88 model year for the remaining
large RWD Wagons and the RWD Cadillac, but lived out is years with an
electronic Quadrajet.

Regards,
Fred

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 07:22:31 -0500
From: Paul White <oldslist@netscape.net>
Subject: Seville Intake

Hi,
Sorry if this is a dumb question but I know someone on here knows the 
answer. Will the FI intake off a 75-81 Seville fit a 455?

paulbunyan

Also if anyone has any questions bout Comfortron I can help you :-)

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 07:33:02 -0500
From: "Fred Nissen" <fsnissen@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Seville Intake

> Sorry if this is a dumb question but I know someone on here knows the
> answer. Will the FI intake off a 75-81 Seville fit a 455?
>

No.  Seville used a 350 Olds (small block).  The intake will not fit a 455
(big block).

Regards,
Fred

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:53:05 -0300
From: "Tour Op & Travel Agency Trade 2000" <travelchile@manquehue.net>
Subject: Re: Olds Fuel Injection, was 455 FI....

Wasn't that for the Olds engine being heavy? The look for better city mpg
pases through the weight reduction. In those years US cars were much haevier
than the rest of the modern cars ( just skip the russian tanks ) I guess,
they were desperate to gain any mpg or fraction possible...
MAtt

> You know, all this talk of fuel injection has me wondering....
>
> Now, when they had the Olds 350 FI for the Seville, I'm sure that quite a
> bit of expense went into research and development, fabricating the
> machinery for producing the parts, etc.
>
> But once 1980 came and went, suddenly Olds smallblock FI was gone.
>
> I would have thought that they might have decided to continue to offer
such
> a setup, perhaps with further and further refinement, for the Olds 260 and
> 307 in the 1980s.
>
> You gotta figure, they were going through all sorts of hoops trying to
pass
> emissions and fuel economy standards, why not just use the system that
> already exists?  I'm sure improvments could've come about by tweaking
> things here and there, evolutionary steps.
>
> So why didn't they?  I mean, of the engines in the 300 cubic inch range,
> the 307 produced the most bottom end torque.  Experience of some listers
> indicates a better cam would've helped, but surely the multiport injection
> could've helped boost power a bit as well as help make emissions easier to
> pass.
>
> Seems like an opportunity they threw away.
>
>
> - Joe Vahabzadeh
>

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:11:09 +0000
From: joevitek@comcast.net
Subject: Re: What We New Englanders Will Put Up With To Get Another Engine ;o)

Thanks for the documentary Steve! I am now in Florida, got here at 4:30pm yesterday. Typing this through comcast's webmail interface. I have included the entire text of Steve's message below as I don't think it was posted to the G-list.

I will send something more detailed later with some more "stories from the road". Thanks to Keith and Steve for their patience as I have been trying to plan this trip for almost 3 months.

Next stop: Mark Davis' house...

- --
joe

> This's what I spent a cupla hours of my day doing:
> http://members.dandy.net/~k0xp/Oldsmobile/Delivery_Of_Keiths_403.htm
> 
> Sorta ties in neatly with the recent discussion of engine hoists and
> stands, eh :o) That hoist in the pix is, I happened to notice, an Excalibur
> brand. As I mentioned earlier, it looked pretty stout and there was no
> problem lifting that 403 outta the SUV. Actually, Joe had the 403 sitting
> on a pallet with a portion of a plank cut out to let the oil pan drop into
> the pallet. The hoist had to lift the engine maybe 3 inches to get the
> weight off the SUV's springs and we actually didn't have any extra
> lift-room. The hoist just barely lifted the engine's weight off the pallet,
> which we then grabbed and held while Joe went back up front, put the truck
> in neutral and released the brakes, letting it roll forward enough to get
> the pallet out of the back. Then the pallet fell to the ground and PRESTO:
> an Olds 403 hanging by its neck, waiting to be put to bed on Keith's engine

> stand  ;o)  Keith Miller is one of the guys on the Olds G-body reflector
> (as is Joe, although Joe has recently been found here, too).
> 
> There were never any creaking or groaning noises heard from either the
> hoist or engine stand  ;o)
> 
> SteveH
> 

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 08:47:49 -0500
From: Paul White <oldslist@netscape.net>
Subject: Re: Seville Intake

Thanks Fred. You're the greatest!

paulbunyan

fsnissen@worldnet.att.net wrote:

>>Sorry if this is a dumb question but I know someone on here knows the
>>answer. Will the FI intake off a 75-81 Seville fit a 455?
>>
>>    
>>
>
>No.  Seville used a 350 Olds (small block).  The intake will not fit a 455
>(big block).
>
>Regards,
>Fred
>
>
>  
>

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:52:23 +0000
From: 77w30442@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Olds Fuel Injection, was 455 FI....

what probably happened even though olds developed it and caddy used it, it most likely was mandated by gm that  only caddy could use  efi in those years. also if you look at caddy'd dfi set up resembles the early olds set up.
just a guess at best 
ron
> Wasn't that for the Olds engine being heavy? The look for better city mpg
> pases through the weight reduction. In those years US cars were much haevier
> than the rest of the modern cars ( just skip the russian tanks ) I guess,
> they were desperate to gain any mpg or fraction possible...
> MAtt
> 
> > You know, all this talk of fuel injection has me wondering....
> >
> > Now, when they had the Olds 350 FI for the Seville, I'm sure that quite a
> > bit of expense went into research and development, fabricating the
> > machinery for producing the parts, etc.
> >
> > But once 1980 came and went, suddenly Olds smallblock FI was gone.
> >
> > I would have thought that they might have decided to continue to offer
> such
> > a setup, perhaps with further and further refinement, for the Olds 260 and
> > 307 in the 1980s.
> >
> > You gotta figure, they were going through all sorts of hoops trying to
> pass
> > emissions and fuel economy standards, why not just use the system that
> > already exists?  I'm sure improvments could've come about by tweaking
> > things here and there, evolutionary steps.
> >
> > So why didn't they?  I mean, of the engines in the 300 cubic inch range,
> > the 307 produced the most bottom end torque.  Experience of some listers
> > indicates a better cam would've helped, but surely the multiport injection
> > could've helped boost power a bit as well as help make emissions easier to
> > pass.
> >
> > Seems like an opportunity they threw away.
> >
> >
> > - Joe Vahabzadeh
> >
> 

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:14:45 -0500
From: SteveH <k0xp@dandy.net>
Subject: Re: Seville Intake

At Tuesday, 20 January 2004, you wrote:

>Hi,
>Sorry if this is a dumb question but I know someone on here 
>knows the answer. Will the FI intake off a 75-81 Seville fit 
>a 455?

No, the FI was only used on small-block 350s; won't fit a big block 455.

SteveH



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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:24:20 +0000
From: 62oldsfan@comcast.net
Subject: 3.1, 3.4, 3.8 intake leaks

List members residing in the Northeast with one of these motors may want to keep an eye on their intakes/gaskets.  This recent extended cold spell has really brought out the failures.  Some gaskets have gone on backorder status, while others are getting to be in short supply.  We've been doing 4 to 5 intake repairs per day over the past week or so.

If you've got one of these motors, keep an eye out for leaks and watch the level in the overflow bottle.

Paul

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:24:20 -0600
From: Kevin Wright <krwright@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: 455 Fuel Injection?

On Jan 19, 2004, at 5:59 PM, oldsmobile-digest wrote:

> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 07:19:59 -0500
> From: "Dave Cullen" <david.cullen@snet.net>
> Subject: Re: 455 Fuel Injection?
>
>> Find a Torker manifold and install injector
>> bungs in it, build a fuel rail
>> wire and plumb fuel.
>
> You forget the part about needing a milling machine and some aluminum
> welding capability. Machine shops around here get $80/hr. Prepping an 
> Olds
> intake for port injection isn't gonna be cheap unless you're a 
> machinist.
> I'm gonna do throttle body.

Feh. Drill press and metal-filled epoxy works fine. Bungs can be bought 
from MSD (via Summit) or made on drill press from aluminum round bar 
(see SDS's tech area for "How to Make Injector Bungs"). Ghetto 
engineering rules! :D
Really, it's not that hard. The toughest bit is getting all the bungs 
straight while epoxying/welding - needs a jig.
Now, if you want to be first class, then, yeah, go for the mill and 
weld the suckers in, but you're just drilling a hole and stuffing in a 
piece of bar stock with another hole in it, for Pete's sake.

TBI, on the other hand, has the advantage of looking stock, if that's 
what you're going for. It can hide under the factory air filter 
housing. I don't care about that, since the turbos will sort of blow 
the stealth thing by themselves... :)
Another nice thing about TBI is that it works with lower pressures 
(about 13PSI, as opposed to the 33-45 PSI for port injection; fuel 
pumps are cheaper), and most TBIs have the fuel pressure regulator 
built in. They also work fine on your average dual-plane manifold, 
since they have the same fuel distribution problems as carburetors. 
They are somewhat limited in ultimate HP capability in that they only 
have two BIG injectors, but for mild stuff, they're fine. Better than a 
carb, at any rate.
I was considering using TBI just to get the thing going, then switch to 
port injection when I had a manifold. That changed when I found the 
Caddy/Olds EFI setup.
>
>> To me, setting up the high-pressure fuel system with
>> return is the stickiest part. I want an in-tank fuel pump...
>
> How come? Why not run an inline pump and filter along the frame rail?

Because I also want the anti-slosh sump that goes with the in-tank 
pump. I know that I could put in a surge tank and separate 
high-pressure and low-pressure pumps, but I like it a little cleaner, 
and I think that a b-body tank will slip right in with just a little 
work, giving me the in-tank pump, slosh well, and return line fitting. 
Also, fuel pumps really don't like to pull fuel, they like to _push_. 
The closer to the fuel the better, and in-tank is about as close as you 
can get.
I think it'll actually be easier to just swap tanks - I'll have to pull 
the original tank anyway to add a return line...
>
> drc
>
On digest mode, so I'm a little slow...

Kevin Wright
Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX

krwright@sbcgloabl.net
http://www.wankel.net/~krwright
http://www.wankel.net/~krwright/cars/70Olds.html

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:44:04 -0600
From: Kevin Wright <krwright@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: 455 Fuel Injection?

I'll be setting up a log on my website. Soon, maybe. :)
It's not difficult to build. It was designed with all through-hole 
components, with plenty of space around them, and there's and excellent 
assembly guide available for download that walks you through the 
sections, and tests every section as it's finished. I highly recommend 
purchasing the "Stimulator" kit as well - this is a little doo-hickey 
that plugs into the 'Squirt and puts out all the signals that the 
sensors would, and allows you to play with them. It's an incredible 
help in trouble shooting the 'Squirt, verifying operation, and, best of 
all, you can hook everything up to the laptop on the bench and watch 
the dials and graphs in the tuning software jump around as you twiddle 
the knobs on the stimulator.:P
If you want to practice a little before committing to the MegaSquirt, 
there are plenty of inexpensive electronics kits out there. Assemble a 
couple of those first.
The FAQ and manual that have been assembled by Lance is first-rate: 
http://www.megasquirt.info/index.htm

krw
On Jan 19, 2004, at 5:59 PM, oldsmobile-digest wrote:

> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 10:47:05 -0500
> From: Paul White <oldslist@netscape.net>
> Subject: Re: 455 Fuel Injection?
>
> I definatedly would love to see your results. Please post when you get
> it finished. I was looking at the Megasquirt myself, but my soldering
> skills are not the greatest. Is it really that hard to assemble the 
> ECU?
> I have only soldered a cheap ass am radio together back in high school
> before. I know I can do the rest, the ecu assembly is the only thing
> that would make me think twice...
>
> paulbunyan
On digest mode, so I'm a little slow...

Kevin Wright
Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX

krwright@sbcgloabl.net
http://www.wankel.net/~krwright
http://www.wankel.net/~krwright/cars/70Olds.html

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:08:17 -0500
From: King V <king_v@mindless.com>
Subject: question on a non-Olds motor....

All,

	Looking into getting, possibly, as a driver for now, a 1978 Malibu.

	Well, it says it's got a V6, says its very reliable, and the photo does
show the car to look nice and straight, though I'll have to see it in
person to be sure.

	I am familiar with the 231, but it's possible this car has an even smaller
V6, a Chevy branded 200 CID v6.  Shares the same stroke as the SB chevy
V8s, but with the two cylinders cut off, and the bore reduced to 3.50 inches.

	They only made this motor for 1978 and 1979.

	Does it have a particular reputation, good or bad?  Did they learn from
what Buick learned shortly before, and made sure the crank wouldn't cause
the trouble the odd-fire 231s had?

	And further, probably most importantly, is it a fairly trivial swap to get
an el-cheapo C-brand 350 and bolt it right in?

	I haven't even called about the car yet, simply because I'm fairly certain
it's probably going to be vinyl seat and has a good chance of NOT being AC
equipped (either never having it from the factory, or having it
nonfunctional due to age), but I thought I'd try to get a little info
first.....


	Thanks in advance!  Stay tuned for potentially more questions on different
non-Olds motors in the future!


	- Joe Vahabzadeh

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 11:03:54 -0600
From: Kevin Wright <krwright@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: oh my God I hate brakes

On Jan 19, 2004, at 5:59 PM, oldsmobile-digest wrote:

> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:12:35 -0600
> From: Brian Ammons <b_ammons@mail.utexas.edu>
> Subject: oh my God I hate brakes
>
> Trying to get the 1977 PC rolling.  Replaced front calipers with 1984  
> Delta
> 88 issues - only difference apparently is a 10mm bleed screw instead  
> of a
> 7/16 bleed screw, but...is there a possibility that these two parts  
> DON'T
> interchange?  I ask because I found out that the rotors LOOK like  
> they'll
> interchange but definitely DON'T - the spindle on the '77 is smaller in
> diameter than the spindle on the '84 (tried to mount '84 rotors on '77
> spindles and they wobbled).  Calipiers looked good though so I kept  
> that
> part of the mix...the difference on the rotors is obviously metric vs
> standard...who knows the details?

Not metric - GM just made the outer wheel bearing bigger on the later  
models. I have no idea what the breakover year was, but Global West  
mentions it when hunting spindles for the tall spindle swap for  
A-bodies:  
http://www.globalwest.net/1964 
- -72%20disc_brake_conversion_informatio.htm

BTW - brake pads are the same for all b-bodies. EBC Brakes lists the  
same pad for Caprices 67-96 (except Police and Impala SS.) 71-85 on the  
Olds 88. They list the same pads for A-bodies, incidentally. Gotta love  
GM interchangeability.
http://www.ebcbrakes.com/
>
On digest mode, so I'm a little slow...

Kevin Wright
Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX

krwright@sbcgloabl.net
http://www.wankel.net/~krwright
http://www.wankel.net/~krwright/cars/70Olds.html

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:12:22 -0500
From: King V <king_v@mindless.com>
Subject: Re: Olds Fuel Injection, was 455 FI....

At 11:58 PM 01/19/2004 -0500, Andrew wrote:
>Actually they did experiment with a TBI system for the 307.
>

Well, yes, but that seems almost like a separate line of development, to go
with throttle body (which they probably should've done when going the
roller-307 way, but anyhoo...)  I'm figuring if anything, corporate
laziness should've kicked in in the early 1980s . . since they already had
the intake manifold and fuel rail for the multiport 350 injection, and
already made an Olds V8 distributor with what amounts to a cam-position
sensor attached....

I'm wondering if Ron's theory is right . . .  or maybe the "Let's go Chevy"
decision might've had the decree of "Thou shalt not outdo the Chevy engine,
even if the parts are already lying around the shop to do so" or something
along that line.

Ahhh . . I'm starting to sound like one of those conspiracy-theory folks.....


	- Joe Vahabzadeh

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:21:34 -0500
From: "swanny" <swannys78@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: question on a non-Olds motor....

Personally I haven't heard of that motor. The manuals I have don't list it
anyway. but as far as the 350 swap, motor mounts and V-6 y-pipe come into
play. Some of the chevy 350's came through with a cross over manifold on the
right side, the left manifold, or drivers side manifold outlet crossed over
to the passenger side manifold and the gasses escaped from a second outlet
out to the cat. The tranny might be a 200 metric.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "King V" <king_v@mindless.com>
To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 12:08 PM
Subject: question on a non-Olds motor....


> All,
>
> Looking into getting, possibly, as a driver for now, a 1978 Malibu.
>
> Well, it says it's got a V6, says its very reliable, and the photo does
> show the car to look nice and straight, though I'll have to see it in
> person to be sure.
>
> I am familiar with the 231, but it's possible this car has an even smaller
> V6, a Chevy branded 200 CID v6.  Shares the same stroke as the SB chevy
> V8s, but with the two cylinders cut off, and the bore reduced to 3.50
inches.
>
> They only made this motor for 1978 and 1979.
>
> Does it have a particular reputation, good or bad?  Did they learn from
> what Buick learned shortly before, and made sure the crank wouldn't cause
> the trouble the odd-fire 231s had?
>
> And further, probably most importantly, is it a fairly trivial swap to get
> an el-cheapo C-brand 350 and bolt it right in?
>
> I haven't even called about the car yet, simply because I'm fairly certain
> it's probably going to be vinyl seat and has a good chance of NOT being AC
> equipped (either never having it from the factory, or having it
> nonfunctional due to age), but I thought I'd try to get a little info
> first.....
>
>
> Thanks in advance!  Stay tuned for potentially more questions on different
> non-Olds motors in the future!
>
>
> - Joe Vahabzadeh
>
>

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:25:40 -0500
From: "Fred Nissen" <fsnissen@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Olds Fuel Injection, was 455 FI....

> Well, yes, but that seems almost like a separate line of development, to
go
> with throttle body (which they probably should've done when going the
> roller-307 way, but anyhoo...)

Yes.

> I'm figuring if anything, corporate
> laziness should've kicked in in the early 1980s . . since they already had
> the intake manifold and fuel rail for the multiport 350 injection, and
> already made an Olds V8 distributor with what amounts to a cam-position
> sensor attached....

There was nothing particularly wrong with most of the basic mechanical parts
of the early Cadillac system, but as a whole it was very expensive, and
there were a lot of field service issues.  A high warranty claim rate on a
Seville (most expensive Cadillac of the era outside of the factory built
Fleetwood 75 limousine, and a very profitable car) may have been acceptable
to the bean counters, but the same cost spread across a couple million Olds,
Buick and Pontiac models would be something else.  The control systems
available at the time were also not able to take advantage of the system's
potential.  All of the EFI Cadillacs with the Olds 350 had to have AIR to
pass emissions.  The regular carbed Olds engines only needed it in CA prior
to 1980.


> I'm wondering if Ron's theory is right . . .  or maybe the "Let's go
Chevy"
> Ahhh . . I'm starting to sound like one of those conspiracy-theory
folks.....

Probably not a conspiracy, just a matter of cost.  They were suck with the
Chebby engine for the trucks which remained in the product plan for the
foreseeable future.  Longitudinal V8 passenger cars were slated to be gone
soon in the early to mid '80's.  There was also the issue of production
capacity and tooling cost.  Lots of the Olds tooling dated to the 1950's and
would have needed upgrading or replacement if the engine had stayed in
production.

Regards,
Fred

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:29:19 -0500
From: "swanny" <swannys78@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: question on a non-Olds motor....

Although, Chevy did put a straight six in the malibu until '79.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "swanny" <swannys78@adelphia.net>
To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: question on a non-Olds motor....


> Personally I haven't heard of that motor. The manuals I have don't list it
> anyway. but as far as the 350 swap, motor mounts and V-6 y-pipe come into
> play. Some of the chevy 350's came through with a cross over manifold on
the
> right side, the left manifold, or drivers side manifold outlet crossed
over
> to the passenger side manifold and the gasses escaped from a second outlet
> out to the cat. The tranny might be a 200 metric.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "King V" <king_v@mindless.com>
> To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 12:08 PM
> Subject: question on a non-Olds motor....
>
>
> > All,
> >
> > Looking into getting, possibly, as a driver for now, a 1978 Malibu.
> >
> > Well, it says it's got a V6, says its very reliable, and the photo does
> > show the car to look nice and straight, though I'll have to see it in
> > person to be sure.
> >
> > I am familiar with the 231, but it's possible this car has an even
smaller
> > V6, a Chevy branded 200 CID v6.  Shares the same stroke as the SB chevy
> > V8s, but with the two cylinders cut off, and the bore reduced to 3.50
> inches.
> >
> > They only made this motor for 1978 and 1979.
> >
> > Does it have a particular reputation, good or bad?  Did they learn from
> > what Buick learned shortly before, and made sure the crank wouldn't
cause
> > the trouble the odd-fire 231s had?
> >
> > And further, probably most importantly, is it a fairly trivial swap to
get
> > an el-cheapo C-brand 350 and bolt it right in?
> >
> > I haven't even called about the car yet, simply because I'm fairly
certain
> > it's probably going to be vinyl seat and has a good chance of NOT being
AC
> > equipped (either never having it from the factory, or having it
> > nonfunctional due to age), but I thought I'd try to get a little info
> > first.....
> >
> >
> > Thanks in advance!  Stay tuned for potentially more questions on
different
> > non-Olds motors in the future!
> >
> >
> > - Joe Vahabzadeh
> >
> >
>
>
>

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:46:23 -0500
From: "Fred Nissen" <fsnissen@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: question on a non-Olds motor....

> Looking into getting, possibly, as a driver for now, a 1978 Malibu.
>
> Well, it says it's got a V6,
> I am familiar with the 231, but it's possible this car has an even smaller
> V6, a Chevy branded 200 CID v6.  Shares the same stroke as the SB chevy
> V8s, but with the two cylinders cut off, and the bore reduced to 3.50
inches.

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

I haven't had too much direct experience with the 200 Chebby V6, but the
later 229 version seemed to be fairly reliable.  A friend had one in an '81
Malibu that lasted close to 200K and was still running well enough for the
new owner to drive the thing several hundred miles home when he sold the
car.  A Chebby V8 can be installed, but you will want to upgrade the front
springs.  Original trans could be either  TH 200 or a TH 350.  Sometimes the
heavier trans ended up with the lighter engine for EPA weight class reasons.

Regards,
Fred

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:14:37 -0500
From: SteveH <k0xp@dandy.net>
Subject: Re: question on a non-Olds motor....

At Tuesday, 20 January 2004, you wrote:

>>Looking into getting, possibly, as a driver for now, a 
>>1978 Malibu.
>>
>>Well, it says it's got a V6,
>>I am familiar with the 231, but it's possible this car 
>>has an even smaller V6, a Chevy branded 200 CID v6. Shares 
>>the same stroke as the SB chevy V8s, but with the two 
>>cylinders cut off, and the bore reduced to 3.50 inches.
>
>------------------------
>
>I haven't had too much direct experience with the 200 
>Chebby V6, but the later 229 version seemed to be fairly 
>reliable. A friend had one in an '81 Malibu that lasted 
>close to 200K and was still running well enough for the
>new owner to drive the thing several hundred miles home 
>when he sold the car. A Chebby V8 can be installed, but 
>you will want to upgrade the front springs. Original 
>trans could be either  TH 200 or a TH 350.  Sometimes the
>heavier trans ended up with the lighter engine for EPA 
>weight class reasons.

Both my '83 M*libu and '84 Elky have the 229 V6; and as far's I'm 
concerned, it's bout the ONLY Ch*bby V-engine worth thinking about 
(besides a 427, of course  :o) The M*libu has over 225K miles and 
the Elky seems to be around 230K miles. Neither smoke or use oil.
Both have a disproportional amount of power for their size, considering 
the vehicles each is in are fairly heavy examples of A/G-bodies. 
I'm satisfied with them although I'd rather have a 307 or 425  :o)

According to the CSMs up through '83, A/G-body wagons (regardless 
of engine) and 442s-H/Os got the TH350/350C while almost everything 
else got the 200/200C, including the Ch*bby Elky. This's not a blanket 
statement, just guideline. I had a chart covering '79-'88 that I'll 
hafta find and post somewhere.

SteveH



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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:33:45 -0600
From: David Brown <dbrown@mh1.uchospitals.edu>
Subject: Re: new MC Re: oh my God I hate brakes

Did the transition to low drag calipers also take place with the diesel 
hydro-boot system?

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:30:37 -0300
From: "Tour Op & Travel Agency Trade 2000" <travelchile@manquehue.net>
Subject: 81CS blues...

Well guys, the 81CS is legal now! CO below 0.1%, hcc about 200-300ppm,
totaly within the norms. The dualjet of unknown origin, thanks to parts from
Ron, works fine, but is lean from the idle up to the half way, getting
progressively richer as the PV rises... now, the car will not fly , not even
try to... very slow car.
I have some spare rods for the carb, 54P. The ones inside are 51P - knows
anybody which one is richer?
OTOH, the locking TC won't work now - normal I gues, as there is no TPS
conected to the ECU... how could I lie to the ECU to make it connect the TC
clutch over 45mph as before? I've read, that the TCC function is sort of
stand alone one and will work alone, without the rest of sensors... could be
true?
rgds
Matt
The proud owner of the laziest Olds in the group....

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:30:56 -0500
From: "The General" <patton442@verizon.net>
Subject: need someone to post a picture for me .....

Hey list,

        I am trying to get a few pictures to Chris Witt, but he  has a limit
on space. I have tried to
zip but to dice...   Can someone post a few pics for me ??????????

Tanks,
The General

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:01:51 -0500
From: "The General" <patton442@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: need someone to post a picture for me .....

Hey List,

        I forgot about my old Yahooooo !!!   account ...
Picture has been posted ....

The General

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:01:32 -0500
From: "Christopher Witt" <rocketscience442@hotmail.com>
Subject: Last chance 350 nodular CRANK $25 plus shipping

see that and more:

http://cgi6.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?MfcISAPICommand=ViewListedItems&userid=*the*rocketscientist&since=30&sort=8&rows=25

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

_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee. 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

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

End of oldsmobile-digest V1 #4748
*********************************
