
oldsmobile-digest       Saturday, March 6 2004       Volume 01 : Number 4805



Re: Wanted:  '69 Ragtop
Re: Wanted:  '69 Ragtop
Re: Tri-Power more fuel efficient?
RE: Wanted:  '69 Ragtop
RE: Wanted: =?ISO-8859-1?B?oCc2OSBSYWd0b3A=?=
REQ:  The Year Once Discount Code I posted
Re: ADMIN: UNBOUNCING posts, etc.
Re: ADMIN: UNBOUNCING posts, etc.
Re: Tri-Power more fuel efficient?
=?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_Wanted:_=A0'69_Ragtop?=
Re: Tri-Power more fuel efficient?
3x2 vs 1x4 bbl
Re: joke parts site
Imitation/ Flattery
Re: A 2-5/8" gauge bracket
Imitation/ Flattery
RE: A 2-5/8" gauge bracket
REWanted:'69 Ragtop
Re: Tri-Power more fuel efficient?
Re: REWanted:'69 Ragtop
Re: Tri-Power more fuel efficient?
Mass. Emissions
3.23 vs 3.42
Re: Mass. Emissions
Re: 3.23 vs 3.42
Re: Wanted:  '69 Ragtop
Re: Tri-Power more fuel efficient?
Re:
Re: Tri-Power more fuel efficient?
A-body lower and upper control arms

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

Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 21:06:27 -0500
From: "Dan Roethel" <droethel@rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Wanted:  '69 Ragtop

Check the Evilbay site. They may have what you are looking for.


  If anyone has
> any leads on one, please drop me a note.  He is willing to get an out of
> state car, and is looking for something with a straight body, but can have
> no tranny or engine, or just need fixing up.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Steve Reed
> '96 9C1 Chevy Caprice
> '70 Cutlass Supreme Ragtop (In Reassembly mode)
> '68 Cutlass Supreme (Seized Engine)
> Austin, TX
> http://www.sreed.0catch.com/html/cars.html
>
>
>

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

Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 21:18:26 -0500
From: "ron fama" <77w30442@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Wanted:  '69 Ragtop

i will ask joe walters from the 73-77 list he had one
ron
- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Reed" <ssreed@direcway.com>
To: "Olds" <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 8:46 PM
Subject: Wanted: '69 Ragtop


> Greetings all!
> I have met a friend at the body shop where I had my sheet metal work
> done last year, who is looking to find a car from his younger days.
> He is looking for a straight bodied 1969 Olds Ragtop.  If anyone has
> any leads on one, please drop me a note.  He is willing to get an out of
> state car, and is looking for something with a straight body, but can have
> no tranny or engine, or just need fixing up.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> Steve Reed 
> '96 9C1 Chevy Caprice 
> '70 Cutlass Supreme Ragtop (In Reassembly mode) 
> '68 Cutlass Supreme (Seized Engine) 
> Austin, TX 
> http://www.sreed.0catch.com/html/cars.html
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 22:19:53 -0500
From: Cutlass7276@netscape.net (Randy Hermsen)
Subject: Re: Tri-Power more fuel efficient?

Hello Greg
>
>On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 12:47:35PM -0800, Greg Tjosvold wrote:
>> I've always thought putting a tri-power set up (3x2) on my 56 Olds would be 
>> cool, but was afraid that it would use too much gas compared to my single 
>> four barrel. On a show I was watching earlier this week they said just the 
>> opposite is true. Is that right?
>
>>Yes the center carb(2 barrel) runs only untill approx. 60% throttle then ends open up.
Also your 4 barrel linkage wont work, you will need to find a 2 barrel car linkage,mine was a stock 2 barrel car to start so it hooked right up.
>> 
Nanook

P.S. Should I be looking for an Offy manifold? I don't think tri-power was 
a factory option until '57 was it?
>>
>Yes there are lotsa alum. intakes on epay,cheap, fer earlier Olds...and later 394s....everything but the 371 :(.
Offy will pour ya a alum. for the 371 prt # 4061,,,approx $360.Can total delivered over the line.
If you do decide to do this tri power conversion on your 56 its not a easy chore$!
>>

>The extra carbs only opened up on WOT (or near-WOT).  
>
>The owner of the car said the front and rear carbs tend to get gunked up
>with varnish due to disuse, which ends up limiting the whole setup's
>usefulness.
>Scott Alfter >
>>
>Who would drive around without opening up the ends to hear the sound it makes?...then theres the seat of the pants feel.....
There goes our gas milage :O
34 days till we race.
Good luck!
Drivesafe!!!!!
Randy H.
CDL,Class 1, 0 tickets for 10 years
72 Cutlass 12.68@107.98
58 88 Tri power
72 Cutlass Convert(Windy)
Van.B.C.Can.
 http://images.andale.com/f2/115/106/3596099/1077903033808_0228_005.jpg 




__________________________________________________________________
Introducing the New Netscape Internet Service. 
Only $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register

Netscape. Just the Net You Need. 

New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp

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

Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 21:24:08 -0600
From: Steve Reed <ssreed@direcway.com>
Subject: RE: Wanted:  '69 Ragtop

Dan Roethel first replied with.....
>Check the Evilbay site. They may have what you are looking for.

Then Rona Fama replied with.....
> i will ask joe walters from the 73-77 list he had one ron

Thanks guys.  Naturally the Evilbay site is a last resort to any purchase,
because of the overbidding & pricing.

Plus I was hoping to help someone out from the list by unloading something
they were hoping to sell, and on the other hand, to get an honest seller.

Anyway, please do let me know if something appears before I see it myself.


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

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

Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 23:11:19 -0500
From: Cutlass7276@netscape.net (Randy Hermsen)
Subject: RE: Wanted: =?ISO-8859-1?B?oCc2OSBSYWd0b3A=?=

Steve Reed <ssreed@direcway.com> wrote:

.
>
>Anyway, please do let me know if something appears before I see it myself.
>
>
>Steve Reed 
>>
Hi Steve
There is a 69 parked on a blk top driveway 5 blocks from here...red car..has all the chrome,body looks good, 2 flat tires, ripped roof.musta rained in it all winter :(,,,can we say $35.00 for a tarp?
My other buddy asked him last summer if he was gonna sell...he said
 "No..i will restore it one day".
I know what i think of this person before i even go knock on the door 9 months later!
Do you really wanna rescue/ship a 69 convert car from Van B.C. Canada?
Let me know i will take pics and knock on his door fer ya.
Good luck huntin
Randy H.


__________________________________________________________________
Introducing the New Netscape Internet Service. 
Only $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register

Netscape. Just the Net You Need. 

New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp

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

Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 22:45:46 -0600
From: Steve Reed <ssreed@direcway.com>
Subject: REQ:  The Year Once Discount Code I posted

All,
	I can't seem to find my latest card, or the email I posted to the
list last week about the latest Year One 20% discount code.
	Can someone please send it to me & the list?

Thanks,

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

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

Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 20:48:46 -0800
From: geo.aigel@netzero.net
Subject: Re: ADMIN: UNBOUNCING posts, etc.

Do you think it is time to move ourselves into the new millennium by 
switching to a more modern discussion board forum? There now is great 
software out there that allows posting pictures, pulling polls etc. Would 
you be willing to transform us? I have no clue if there is fr*e space out 
there, but it would be great. I am a member on some other non olds boards 
and have to admit that I like the format much better, even after 5+ years 
with major-bozo. ;)

George

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

Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 05:08:23 +0000
From: Steve Harrison <k0xp@dandy.net>
Subject: Re: ADMIN: UNBOUNCING posts, etc.

At 08:48 PM 3/5/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>Do you think it is time to move ourselves into the new millennium by 
>switching to a more modern discussion board forum? There now is great 
>software out there that allows posting pictures, pulling polls etc. Would 
>you be willing to transform us? I have no clue if there is fr*e space out 
>there, but it would be great. I am a member on some other non olds boards 
>and have to admit that I like the format much better, even after 5+ years 
>with major-bozo. ;)

I thank the Almighty, every day, that there are still some reflectors that
flatly refuse to go forum-style. I cannot stand forums, myself. I'd go away
if a reflector became one.

SteveH

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

Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 22:11:53 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: Tri-Power more fuel efficient?

Greg,

Actually, MPG is determined by your foot and how much the foot keeps the gas
pedal depressed.

When I run dual quads, I don't use a front cruise carb and a WOT rear carb
without idle jets. I use 2 regular 4-barrels and adjust all 4 idle jets. I
use solid linkage so that all 4 front primary throttle plates open at the
same time. As long as my foot behaves itself, I will get the same MPG as
with one 4-barrel.

With 3-twos, the engine idles off the center carb and the end carbs kick in
at WOT. As long as one keeps their foot out of the gas pedal and runs on the
center carb, which is the first 85% of the distance the gas pedal depresses
on the progressive linkage, one should get the same MPG as before with
either a 4-barrel or even a 2-barrel.

It's all in foot discipline and mental discipline.

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com


- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Tjosvold" <tjosvold@polar7.com>
To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 1:47 PM
Subject: Tri-Power more fuel efficient?


> I've always thought putting a tri-power set up (3x2) on my 56 Olds would
be
> cool, but was afraid that it would use too much gas compared to my single
> four barrel. On a show I was watching earlier this week they said just the
> opposite is true. Is that right?
>
> If I can get cool _and_ better gas mileage (especially in the city), I'm
> there! :-)
>
> 'Best,
>
> Nanook
>
> P.S. Should I be looking for an Offy manifold? I don't think tri-power was
> a factory option until '57 was it?
>
>

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

Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 23:09:13 -0600
From: Steve Reed <ssreed@direcway.com>
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_Wanted:_=A0'69_Ragtop?=

Randy,

> >Anyway, please do let me know if something appears before I 
> see it myself.
> >
> >
> >Steve Reed
> >>
> Hi Steve
> There is a 69 parked on a blk top driveway 5 blocks from 
> here...red car..has all the chrome,body looks good, 2 flat 
> tires, ripped roof.musta rained in it all winter :(,,,can we 
> say $35.00 for a tarp?
> My other buddy asked him last summer if he was gonna 
> sell...he said  "No..i will restore it one day".
> I know what i think of this person before i even go knock on 
> the door 9 months later!
> Do you really wanna rescue/ship a 69 convert car from Van B.C. Canada?
> Let me know i will take pics and knock on his door fer ya.
> Good luck huntin
> Randy H.

Well this ole' boy was looking for something with a straight body, and if
the cars in B.C. are anything like the cars in NY, I'm guessing he would
pass.

Basically he's looking for something that needs an engine & transmission,
with a straight body.

I'll tell him to pick up a copy of Hemmings magazine, if no one on the
Chebucto list has anything.

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

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

Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 22:21:35 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: Tri-Power more fuel efficient?

> The article on the '57 Fiesta with J-2 said that it got fairly decent
> mileage in normal driving because normal driving would use only the center
> carb.  In normal use, you'd get mileage comparable to a single 2-bbl carb.
> The extra carbs only opened up on WOT (or near-WOT).


Correct.


> The owner of the car said the front and rear carbs tend to get gunked up
> with varnish due to disuse, which ends up limiting the whole setup's
> usefulness.


That's why I prefer dual quads with equally working front and rear carbs on
solid linkage. The two 4-barrels will work equally and stay clean.

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com

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

Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 00:22:33 -0500
From: "Christopher Witt" <rocketscience442@hotmail.com>
Subject: 3x2 vs 1x4 bbl

The article on the '57 Fiesta with J-2 said that it got fairly decent
mileage in normal driving because normal driving would use only the center
carb.  In normal use, you'd get mileage comparable to a single 2-bbl carb.
=============
Imagine that.



The owner of the car said the front and rear carbs tend to get gunked up
with varnish due to disuse, which ends up limiting the whole setup's 
usefulness.
..................^^^^^^^^
Well, the answer to THAT problem seems rather obvious.
How about you go ahead and spend the gas every once in a while?
I use quite a bit of fuel in my car, when it's in use. 4.33 gearing tends to 
spin the engine rapidly. However, the Grin Factor is very well worth it.

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

_________________________________________________________________
Learn how to help protect your privacy and prevent fraud online at Tech 
Hacks & Scams. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/techsafety.armx

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

Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 00:29:03 -0500
From: "Christopher Witt" <rocketscience442@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: joke parts site

From: Oldsmagnet <oldsmagnet@oldsmagnet.com>
Subject: Re: joke parts site

>Does anybody remember the URL of that phony parts site that lists things
>like Knutson valves and other mythical parts?

Must be this one
http://www.kalecoauto.com/
Although that stuff's all real, isn't it???  LOL :-)
==================================

The exhaust “O” pipe is just hilarious…
then again, so is the rest of it.
Ignition molecules?
"Can't be used on exhaust systems with tips under 3" diameter"....
Empty box = Air cleaner bypass kit....
Heh.

They left out the fuel line magnets, the tornado swirl intake BS, and of 
course Electron Filters to keep the larger 120V electrons out of your little 
12V wiring system.

I figured, for my 442, rather than use Cow Magnets by the dozen, lining the 
entire fuel line from tank to carb, I would just wrap the line in wire, and 
use the battery to induce a strong electromagnetic field, thus "polarizing" 
the fuel molecules. Any idjit knows that like charges repel, so if all the 
fuel molecules are repelling each other, they will naturally expand quickly 
to fill the cylinder better, thus providing much better combustion.
- -----------------------
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 computer virus scan from McAfee when you click here. 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

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

Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 00:34:27 -0500
From: "Christopher Witt" <rocketscience442@hotmail.com>
Subject: Imitation/ Flattery

Well, lookee here:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=33632&item=2463687635

vs one of my ads:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=33632&item=2457518894&ssPageName=STRK:MESSO:IT

I guess I  must be flattered. Took my entire ad, pretty much, muffed up the 
HTML, and stuck his photo on it.

Is this anybody here, perchance?
"juggalizzle"

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

_________________________________________________________________
Frustrated with dial-up? Lightning-fast Internet access for as low as 
$29.95/month. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/

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

Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 23:34:20 -0600
From: Kevin Wright <krwright@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: A 2-5/8" gauge bracket

Where do you have that mounted, out of curiosity?

krw
On Mar 5, 2004, at 7:53 PM, oldsmobile-digest wrote:

> Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 18:56:17 -0600
> From: Steve Reed <ssreed@direcway.com>
> Subject: A 2-5/8" gauge bracket
>
> All,
> 	A little while ago, I wrote about creating a bracket to hold my (4)
> gauges.  I created some extras at work, and have a few to sell if 
> anyone is
> interested.
> 	I'm working on uploading the pix to my web page now, but the damn
> software is locking up.  So if you would like to see (2) pix of the 
> BRKT,
> drop me a note.
>
<skip>
>
> All,
> 	Here is the URL of the BRKT I wrote about earlier.
>
> http://www.sreed.0catch.com/html/for_sale.html
>
> Steve Reed
> '96 9C1 Chevy Caprice
> '70 Cutlass Supreme Ragtop (In Reassembly mode)
> '68 Cutlass Supreme (Seized Engine)
> Austin, TX
> http://www.sreed.0catch.com/html/cars.html
On digest mode, so I'm a little slow...

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

'71 Cutlass S for sale, less engine and trans: 
http://www.wankel.net/~krwright/cars/olds/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: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 00:50:01 -0500
From: "Christopher Witt" <rocketscience442@hotmail.com>
Subject: Imitation/ Flattery

Well, lookee here:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=33632&item=2463687635

vs one of my ads:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=33632&item=2457518894&ssPageName=STRK:MESSO:IT

I guess I  must be flattered. Took my entire ad, pretty much, muffed up the 
HTML, and stuck his photo on it.

Is this anybody here, perchance?
"redlined442"

- -----------------------
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 business advice and resources to improve your work life, from bCentral. 
http://special.msn.com/bcentral/loudclear.armx

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

Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 00:02:51 -0600
From: Steve Reed <ssreed@direcway.com>
Subject: RE: A 2-5/8" gauge bracket

Kevin,

> > All,
> > 	A little while ago, I wrote about creating a bracket to 
> hold my (4) 
> > gauges.  I created some extras at work, and have a few to sell if 
> > anyone is interested.
> > 	I'm working on uploading the pix to my web page now, 
> but the damn 
> > software is locking up.  So if you would like to see (2) pix of the 
> > BRKT, drop me a note.
> Where do you have that mounted, out of curiosity?
> 
> krw

I had planned on mounting it to the bottom of the sheet metal dash, prob in
the area in front of my shifter.

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

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

Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 01:19:08 -0500
From: Cutlass7276@netscape.net (Randy Hermsen)
Subject: REWanted:'69 Ragtop

Steve Reed <ssreed@direcway.com> wrote:

>Well this ole' boy was looking for something with a straight body, and if
>the cars in B.C. are anything like the cars in NY, I'm guessing he would
>pass.
>Steve Reed 
>
>>Hi Steve
I dont know about the easterners but we were in t shirts in the sun 2 weeks ago :)
Dont tell anyone our Hollywood north secret but check out our cars :)
http://www.angelfire.com/rock2/cutlass7276/Page19.html
http://www.angelfire.com/rock2/cutlass7276/FathersDay2002.html
http://www.angelfire.com/rock2/cutlass7276/Page16.html
That red 69 vert would look good in my garage:).
Randy H.
58 88
72 Bumobile
72 Cutlass Convert.
69 Ragtop?
LOL


__________________________________________________________________
Introducing the New Netscape Internet Service. 
Only $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register

Netscape. Just the Net You Need. 

New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp

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

Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 22:51:02 -0800
From: Greg Tjosvold <tjosvold@polar7.com>
Subject: Re: Tri-Power more fuel efficient?

Milton,

I'm a bit confused as you talked about a duel 4-barrel vs. 3x2 set up. Are 
you saying that a single quad is the same as a 3x2 if you use your pedal 
wisely?

I'm most interested in stop and go city driving.

'Best,

Nanook the Rookie

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

Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 00:14:34 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: REWanted:'69 Ragtop

I noticed the SB Chevy in that '71? Olds dark blue A-body.

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com


- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Hermsen" <Cutlass7276@netscape.net>
To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 11:19 PM
Subject: REWanted:'69 Ragtop


> Steve Reed <ssreed@direcway.com> wrote:
>
> >Well this ole' boy was looking for something with a straight body, and if
> >the cars in B.C. are anything like the cars in NY, I'm guessing he would
> >pass.
> >Steve Reed
> >
> >>Hi Steve
> I dont know about the easterners but we were in t shirts in the sun 2
weeks ago :)
> Dont tell anyone our Hollywood north secret but check out our cars :)
> http://www.angelfire.com/rock2/cutlass7276/Page19.html
> http://www.angelfire.com/rock2/cutlass7276/FathersDay2002.html
> http://www.angelfire.com/rock2/cutlass7276/Page16.html
> That red 69 vert would look good in my garage:).
> Randy H.
> 58 88
> 72 Bumobile
> 72 Cutlass Convert.
> 69 Ragtop?
> LOL
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> Introducing the New Netscape Internet Service.
> Only $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register
>
> Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
>
> New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
> Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
> Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp

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

Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 00:28:37 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: Tri-Power more fuel efficient?

> I'm a bit confused as you talked about a duel 4-barrel vs. 3x2 set up. Are
> you saying that a single quad is the same as a 3x2 if you use your pedal
> wisely?


For MPG, at a minimum at low speed up to 75% throttle, yes.


> I'm most interested in stop and go city driving.


If you keep your foot out of it, the center 2-barrel will perform just like
the primaries of a 4-barrel. The secondaries on a 4-barrel don't open until
about 75% throttle. The same or better can be set on the progressive linkage
of a three 2-barrel setup. Stay out of the secondaries, and the MPG will be
the same, even in stop and go city driving. Put your foot into it, and the
MPG will go down.

Where the dual quad system is different than a three 2-barrel system is that
it is very difficult to run three 2-barrels on solid linkage for low speed
throttle control. Also, adjusting 6 idle jets would be a real pain. That
almost mandates progressive linkage for three 2-barrels. Dual quads on solid
linkage with 4 idle jets are no problem, even with a very, very light
vehicle (like in the 1850 pound class).

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com

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

Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 07:09:40 -0500
From: "Paul Tumolo" <ptumolo@comcast.net>
Subject: Mass. Emissions

"ACTUALLY ANY CAR  ANY YEAR WITH REGURLAR REGISTRATION GETS A EMSSION
TEST."

Not true. Cars made before 1984 get no emissions test. Safety only.

My buddy owns a gas station, and does the testing. I saw the rule book.

I had a highly modified 1969 Chevelle. 454 with radical cam, headers,
high rise, etc. About 540 HP. Never had a sniffer test on that car...it
would have killed the machine!

Paul Tumolo
1970 442 Hardtop
OCA # 31967

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

Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 08:28:04 -0500
From: "L. A. Biasotto" <lbiasotto@verizon.net>
Subject: 3.23 vs 3.42

Hi list,
Paul Tumolo has been very kind in guiding me through my decision to change
rears on my 71 SX.  Currently it has a 2.56 posi.  Paul hooked me up with
Brian Trick who has both 3.23 and 3.42 posi rears for sale at a fair price.

Now I have to decide between the two.  I realize it is somewhat of a
personal decision.  But any practical experience would be appreciated.
Based on input from Paul, I am leaning towards the 3.23.  But was hoping
someone out there has some experience with the 3.42 in a cutlass or 442 with
stock 455.  Would love to go as low as possible if the ride will still be
comfortable.

Here are the factors:
My 455 is all original (45k miles) with sparky rebuilt 4bbl, manifolds,
Pertronix HEI, and 2.5" dual exhaust.
I have dynamax super turbos on my torque tech exhaust, she sounds really
muscular but not like a drag car, but...
The current 2.56 can not spin the tires which I am not happy with.
I will drive the car for pleasure only, with a combination of local driving
and local highway.  Will not take the car on long trips unless I decide to
go to a show.  No racing.
Looking for a balance between performance acceleration and reasonable RPM
levels at highway speed.  Would like to be able to spin the tires if desired
from a slow roll plus have some head snapping when punched to pass.  Don't
want to have to be careful about spinning the tires in regular everyday
driving.
Car has 245/60R14s TA Radials
Price between the rears is the same.


Thx again,

Larry Biasotto (on digest)
71 SX Convertible

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

Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 08:45:15 -0500
From: "ron fama" <77w30442@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Mass. Emissions

just wait n see the epa will get around to the lucky states in time.
right now they are targeting the densly populated states. you all will get youre turn.
ron 
- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Tumolo" <ptumolo@comcast.net>
To: "Oldsmobile-Digest" <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 7:09 AM
Subject: Mass. Emissions


> "ACTUALLY ANY CAR  ANY YEAR WITH REGURLAR REGISTRATION GETS A EMSSION
> TEST."
> 
> Not true. Cars made before 1984 get no emissions test. Safety only.
> 
> My buddy owns a gas station, and does the testing. I saw the rule book.
> 
> I had a highly modified 1969 Chevelle. 454 with radical cam, headers,
> high rise, etc. About 540 HP. Never had a sniffer test on that car...it
> would have killed the machine!
> 
> Paul Tumolo
> 1970 442 Hardtop
> OCA # 31967
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 09:07:53 -0800
From: Kevin & Casey Olund <kcolund@shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: 3.23 vs 3.42

You didn't mention cam specs. That's an important part of the decision.

Using the linked calculator, with 3.23s your  RPM @ 60 would be 2451 with 3.42s it  would be 2595

Find out what cam you have and determine it's recommended  RPM @ 60. You can often look at Crane Cams Site for a cam
with similar duration specs (duration determines rpm characteristics ).They list RPM @ 60 specs for there. Use this
information to find the best match. You can also look at a torque graph and choose an rpm near peak torque. You can go a
little to either side of that but go too far and volumetric efficiency starts dropping fast. This is why many people who
switch to a bigger cam get better mileage with a higher ratio gear (because of the increased VE at the higher rpm's),
which offsets the extra number of engine rotations.

In my 83 wagon I went from a 155 HP 305 with 2.46 gears to a 300 HP 350 with 3.23 gears and gained 1 mpg city and 3 mpg
highway over the stock configuration. Good old GM's compromising engineers strike again.

If your considering an upgraded tire size in the future, use the calculator below and pick your ratio with that in mind.

http://www.dalesplace.com/htm/information/rpm_calculator.htm

Hope this helps.

Kevin


- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "L. A. Biasotto" <lbiasotto@verizon.net>
To: "OldsList" <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 5:28 AM
Subject: 3.23 vs 3.42


> Hi list,
> Paul Tumolo has been very kind in guiding me through my decision to change
> rears on my 71 SX.  Currently it has a 2.56 posi.  Paul hooked me up with
> Brian Trick who has both 3.23 and 3.42 posi rears for sale at a fair price.
>
> Now I have to decide between the two.  I realize it is somewhat of a
> personal decision.  But any practical experience would be appreciated.
> Based on input from Paul, I am leaning towards the 3.23.  But was hoping
> someone out there has some experience with the 3.42 in a cutlass or 442 with
> stock 455.  Would love to go as low as possible if the ride will still be
> comfortable.
>
> Here are the factors:
> My 455 is all original (45k miles) with sparky rebuilt 4bbl, manifolds,
> Pertronix HEI, and 2.5" dual exhaust.
> I have dynamax super turbos on my torque tech exhaust, she sounds really
> muscular but not like a drag car, but...
> The current 2.56 can not spin the tires which I am not happy with.
> I will drive the car for pleasure only, with a combination of local driving
> and local highway.  Will not take the car on long trips unless I decide to
> go to a show.  No racing.
> Looking for a balance between performance acceleration and reasonable RPM
> levels at highway speed.  Would like to be able to spin the tires if desired
> from a slow roll plus have some head snapping when punched to pass.  Don't
> want to have to be careful about spinning the tires in regular everyday
> driving.
> Car has 245/60R14s TA Radials
> Price between the rears is the same.
>
>
> Thx again,
>
> Larry Biasotto (on digest)
> 71 SX Convertible
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 10:58:48 -0700
From: Joe & Gloria Varley <carcouple@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Wanted:  '69 Ragtop

Hey Steve,

Does he want a Cutlass, 88, or 98??

Joe Varley

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

Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 10:07:32 -0800
From: Greg Tjosvold <tjosvold@polar7.com>
Subject: Re: Tri-Power more fuel efficient?

>Dual quads on solid linkage with 4 idle jets are no problem, even with a 
>very, very light
>vehicle (like in the 1850 pound class).

OK, this is making more sense to me (I think). Thank you for your patience.

So are you then saying that, if driven properly, a dual 4 barrel set up can 
produce better MPG in city driving than a single 4 barrel (driven the same 
way) on a beast as heavy as mine? Because it is easier to stay out of the 
secondaries?

Hmm...

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

Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 13:56:38 EST
From: NUOLDSMAN@aol.com
Subject: Re:

- --part1_d7.50b8782.2d7b78e6_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 3/5/04 6:03:19 PM Pacific Standard Time, ChazToone@aol.com
writes:
> >Does anyone know the part numbers for both front lower control arms?  
> Also, 
> >
> >will arms from 64-72 Chevelles, El Camino's... fit my '71 Cutlass Supreme?

Hi Charlie,
      According to my Hollander Exchange Book, the part numbers are 402964, 
5.  They exchange with
69-72 Grand Prix
69-72 F 85
64-72 Tempest
That is all the book listed.  I am certain that Chevelles, Skylarks and Monte 
Carlos all were direct exchanges as well.   Don't know what's up with this, 
so take it with a grain of salt.
Steve D

- --part1_d7.50b8782.2d7b78e6_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">In a message dated 3/5/04 6:03:19 P=
M Pacific Standard Time, ChazToone@aol.com<BR>
writes:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">&gt;Does anyone know the part n=
umbers for both front lower control arms?&nbsp; Also, <BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt;will arms from 64-72 Chevelles, El Camino's... fit my '71 Cutlass Suprem=
e?</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
Hi Charlie,<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; According to my Hollander Exchange Book, the=20=
part numbers are 402964, 5.&nbsp; They exchange with<BR>
69-72 Grand Prix<BR>
69-72 F 85<BR>
64-72 Tempest<BR>
That is all the book listed.&nbsp; I am certain that Chevelles, Skylarks and=
 Monte Carlos all were direct exchanges as well.&nbsp;&nbsp; Don't know what=
's up with this, so take it with a grain of salt.<BR>
Steve D</FONT></HTML>

- --part1_d7.50b8782.2d7b78e6_boundary--

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

Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 12:06:26 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: Tri-Power more fuel efficient?

Greg,

> So are you then saying that, if driven properly, a dual 4 barrel set up
can
> produce better MPG in city driving than a single 4 barrel (driven the same
> way) on a beast as heavy as mine? Because it is easier to stay out of the
> secondaries?


No, the MPG should be the same as long as the foot and brain are educated to
only give enough throttle to get the same general acceleration and
performance that was used before with the single 4-barrel for normal city
driving and constant highway cruising. As an example, if you have cruise
control, the speedometer reading when you push the set button determines
throttle position to maintain that speed. With dual quads on solid linkage
running off of the 4 primary throttle plates, that throttle position will be
less in total travel distance than the position for a single 4-barrel
running with just 2 primary throttle plates, but the MPG will be the same
during highway cruise at the same given speed. If you want about the same
MPG after you install dual quads on your engine, you will need to be
dedicated and disciplined to have your foot and brain operate the throttle
in a manner that duplicates the acceleration and performance you had with
one 4-barrel, that is, until you really want to get on it at WOT.

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com

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

Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 13:07:06 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: A-body lower and upper control arms

Well, looking in the MOOG catalog for Olds A-bodies:

'64-'72 lower ball joint the same = K-5103
'64-'72 upper ball joint the same = K-5108
(I'd say there's no danger some idiot would stop making those.)
'64-'65 lower control arm bushing kit = K-5144
'66-'72 lower control arm bushing kit = K-5149 for oval hole and K-6076 for
circular hole, but complete control arms interchange regardless of hole
'64 upper control arm shaft kit, all steel = K-5113
'65-'72 upper control arm bushing kit = K-5250

And,
looking at the Energy Suspension catalog for polyurethane suspension bushing
kits for Olds A-bodies:

'64 lower & upper control arm bushing kit = 3.3121 (only 8 bushings for the
lowers, since the uppers are steel and work even better in a corner than
polyurethane)
'65 lower & upper control arm bushing kit = 3.3117
'66-'72 lower & upper control arm bushing kit = 3.3101 round and 3.3172 oval

However...

The MOOG spring catalog states that '64-'67 A-body front springs use a
tangential pattern on both ends and '68-'72s use a square pattern on the
bottom and a tangential pattern on the top. The bottom of the front spring
rests in the lower control arm.

Also, Edelbrock says that '64-'67 A-bodies use IAS shock #3376 and '68-'72
uses IAS shock #33016. The difference is in the bottom mounting width and
larger diameter hole in the bottom of the lower control arm for the larger
diameter body of a '68-'72 front shock, which is necessary to handle the
increased front end weight of a '68-'72.

So, I would actually say for certain that '64-'72 upper GM A-body control
arms will interchange, even with the steel bushings in the '64. '64-'67
lower control arms will probably also interchange with '68-'72 as far as
bolting into the frame rails correctly and giving the same front end
alignment geometry. '64-'65 simply uses different style bushings but place
the bolts in the same position (**I Think**). Also, if a '67 or earlier
lower control arm was used on a '68 and later, or vice-versa, the shocks and
front springs will have to be changed to match. If one doesn't want to
replace shocks or springs with a different type, stick with '64-'67 as one
separate class of lower control arms and '68-'72 as another separate class
of lower control arms.

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com


- ----- Original Message -----
From: <NUOLDSMAN@aol.com>
To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 11:56 AM
Subject: Re:


> In a message dated 3/5/04 6:03:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,
ChazToone@aol.com
> writes:
> > >Does anyone know the part numbers for both front lower control arms?
> > Also,
> > >
> > >will arms from 64-72 Chevelles, El Camino's... fit my '71 Cutlass
Supreme?
>
> Hi Charlie,
>       According to my Hollander Exchange Book, the part numbers are
402964,
> 5.  They exchange with
> 69-72 Grand Prix
> 69-72 F 85
> 64-72 Tempest
> That is all the book listed.  I am certain that Chevelles, Skylarks and
Monte
> Carlos all were direct exchanges as well.   Don't know what's up with
this,
> so take it with a grain of salt.
> Steve D
>

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

End of oldsmobile-digest V1 #4805
*********************************
