
oldsmobile-digest       Tuesday, March 9 2004       Volume 01 : Number 4810



Re: Low RPM, Max Torque 455
Re: [Fwd: power seat answer needed asap]
455 Intake Bolt Length - bolt sizes
Re:  455 Intake Bolt Length - bolt sizes
Re: WOW, a Ram Rod W-31 1968 442 !!!
Re: WOW, a Ram Rod W-31 1968 442 !!!
Re: WOW, a Ram Rod W-31 1968 442 !!!
Re: WOW, a Ram Rod W-31 1968 442 !!!
Oddball engine in a 1967 98
Re: Engine knocking
Rear control arm choices
RE: Rear control arm choices
buying a 2002 Olds Silhouette
Re: Rear control arm choices
bearing rolling
Dipstick Interference
RE: Dipstick Interference
Re: Oddball engine in a 1967 98
RE: bearing rolling
RE: Dipstick Interference
Re: WOW, a Ram Rod W-31 1968 442 !!!
Re: High-Tech Brake System Helps Drivers was: ABS, lifesaver or Satan's tool?

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

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 01:03:10 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: Low RPM, Max Torque 455

Bob,

A stock 455 is built from the factory as a torque producer. The best thing
to do would be to:

1) complete engine blueprint, so that all specs are true and equal.
2) perfect engine reciprocating assembly balance.
3) true 9 to 1 compression ratio.
4) using a cam from the 455 Olds stationary industrial engine or marine
engine would be ideal. Otherwise, use Crane's 800501 H-192/2667-2S-10 cam.
It's basically a torque generating RV cam.
5) use a 600 CFM Carter/Edelbrock AFB 4-barrel, electric choke.
6) use stock 2" intake, 1 5/8" exhaust heads.
7) use headers that have no bigger than a 1 3/4" primary tube, 34-36" long,
with 3" diameter collector. A 1 5/8" primary 38-40" would be better, but I
don't think you'll find anything like that.
8) make sure the oiling system is perfect with all proper oil system mods.
****No**** oil restrictors.

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@thgeriver.com


- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Barry" <rbarry@providence.edu>
To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 10:04 PM
Subject: Low RPM, Max Torque 455


> I've got a tech question on an engine buildup, but the opposite of how
> these usually go.
>
> I'm dropping a 455 into my '78 Jeep Cherokee (I've been into four-wheeling
> over the past few years), mated to a TH400 tranny turning 38" tires (pics
> at http://home.off-road.com/~wagoneer/cherokee if anyone was interested).
>
> I've got a '73 J-headed engine as a starting point. I was thinking of
> bolting on some B-heads from a '67 Toro that I've had lying around,
> dropping in a decent cam and having fun, but the driving this engine will
> see with this truck is usually REAL low rpms (being able to idle down to
> 400rpm would be a plus), and a LOT of off-idle torque.
>
> Toward that end, I was wondering if anyone has ever built up an engine
> SPECIFICALLY for low-speed torque. I've never seen J-head runners before
> (and the engine is still in the back of my pickup; dang snow has got in
the
> way of working outside yet), but they are reportedly small. Are they small
> as in great port velocity, or small as in sipping a milkshake through a
> stirrer?
>
> Next up would be the camshaft; I could run the stock .440" lift unit in
> there, or go with something giving a bit more lift, but still short
> duration. Any specific cam recommendations for this application? RPM range
> will probably be best described as 500-4500rpm, and flat across the board.
>
> The intake, exhaust and carb will all be stock. Any suggestions welcome.
> ________________________________________
> Bob Barry           mailto://rbarry@providence.edu
> http://home.off-road.com/~wagoneer
>
>

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

Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 06:27:49 -0500
From: John Kelsey <ribspot@pop4.net>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: power seat answer needed asap]

Andrew C. Green wrote:

>> His only has a power seat on the drivers side. Is there a right
>> and left seat transmission or are they both the same? Maybe
>> someone with a parts book could help me out.
> 
> 
> I do _not_ have the parts book so I can't say authoritatively, but I 
> would think they are the same, since the only difference between right 
> and left sides would be the position of the seat control panel 
> (joystick, rocker switches, etc). The seats themselves mount the same 
> way and move in the same directions, so I can't see why their 
> transmissions or motors would need to be anything other than identical.
> 
> -- Andy
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! 
> http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
> 
> 
> 
Thanks Andy,
     My thoughts were along the same line. I appreciate the help
John Kelsey
Dayton Ohio

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

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 06:34:00 -0500
From: "The General" <patton442@verizon.net>
Subject: 455 Intake Bolt Length - bolt sizes

Hey List,

        A quick way to remember bolt sizes ..
>From top down..........
air cleaner hold down - 1/4"
carb hold down          - 5/16"
intake                         - 3/8
head                            - 7/16
always one size bigger from top down
  
The General       patton442@verizon.net

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

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 07:01:01 -0500
From: "Fred Nissen" <fsnissen@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re:  455 Intake Bolt Length - bolt sizes

>         A quick way to remember bolt sizes ..
> From top down..........
> air cleaner hold down - 1/4"
> carb hold down          - 5/16"
> intake                         - 3/8
> head                            - 7/16
> always one size bigger from top down

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

Good advice.  Just remember that the '77-'90 Olds V8 used 1/2" head bolts.

Regards,
Fred

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

Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 06:51:14 -0700
From: Oldsmagnet <oldsmagnet@oldsmagnet.com>
Subject: Re: WOW, a Ram Rod W-31 1968 442 !!!

>> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2464099361&category=15287 

complicating matters slightly is a quote from near bottom of listing:
                 ------------------
RM ONLINE is an online broker. Typically (unless otherwise notated), we 
have not seen, driven or inspected the vehicles we represent. The seller, 
who we represent, wrote the description of this vehicle. Sellers must sign 
a consignment form indicating that misrepresenting their vehicle 
intentionally or unintentionally could result in an action against the seller.

Therefore, we strongly recommend inspecting the vehicle before paying in 
full (hence the deposit) as shipping the vehicle is accepting the vehicle 
as-is. RM ONLINE will not be held liable for misrepresented vehicles that 
were shipped sight unseen.

                 -------------------
(Hadn't noticed mention of that in our little saga here yet)

- -- 
=/   http://oldsmagnet.com   \===========/         Oldsmobile        \=
|  mailto:442@oldsmagnet.com  |=========|         1897 -- 2004        |
=\ Charley Buehner Sidney MT /===========\      Shot In The Back     /=

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

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 08:06:44 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: WOW, a Ram Rod W-31 1968 442 !!!

"Payment Terms:
"The buyer will submit a 5% of purchase price refundable* deposit within 24
hours of the close of the auction to secure the vehicle. Buyer agrees to pay
the remaining balance due (plus applicable fees and taxes) within 5 days of
the close of the auction. All financial transactions must be completed
before delivery of the vehicle.

"*Deposit is refundable ONLY in the event that the vehicle has been
materially misrepresented."


Okay, let me get this straight.

Even though eBay is an online auction house for everyone to participate in,
we have a third party broker advertising this car and auctioning it at full
price. Then the winner of the auction can pay a deposit and has 5 days to
fly to the location and inspect the vehicle. If something is wrong, he must
prove the point within that time limit to get his money back. All of this
without the third party seller taking any steps to even verify the truth in
the ad copy from the owner, let alone even verifying if the car is what it
really is.

Give me a break. This sounds like something for Jon Stossel on ABC to
discuss on his program, "Give Me A Break!".

I can guarantee you that if someone did all of that, and found a vehicle to
be misrepresented after spending all that time, energy, and money to check
it out, the buyer would have civil tort recourse against the third party
seller. That seller is still risking their neck by not inspecting the car
and being careful by what is published. That disclaimer won't hold up in
court, because by being willing to publish that description, the third party
seller is giving a wink and a nod to that description being accurate. That's
part of common civil law. Also, that disclaimer won't get the third party
seller off the hook with musclecarclub.com for infringing on their
copyright, *for the third party seller facilitated the infringement by
allowing it to be published, without exercising the reasonable precautions
available to a reasonable person.*"

I don't know, but maybe I have too high expectations. I would never; could
never operate like that. I'm sorry, but that violates an unwritten honor
code in my universe that I simply can't cross. If I ran eBay, that third
party seller would never be allowed to operate like that.

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com


- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Oldsmagnet" <oldsmagnet@oldsmagnet.com>
To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 6:51 AM
Subject: Re: WOW, a Ram Rod W-31 1968 442 !!!


> >>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2464099361&category=15287
>
> complicating matters slightly is a quote from near bottom of listing:
>                  ------------------
> RM ONLINE is an online broker. Typically (unless otherwise notated), we
> have not seen, driven or inspected the vehicles we represent. The seller,
> who we represent, wrote the description of this vehicle. Sellers must sign
> a consignment form indicating that misrepresenting their vehicle
> intentionally or unintentionally could result in an action against the
seller.
>
> Therefore, we strongly recommend inspecting the vehicle before paying in
> full (hence the deposit) as shipping the vehicle is accepting the vehicle
> as-is. RM ONLINE will not be held liable for misrepresented vehicles that
> were shipped sight unseen.
>
>                  -------------------
> (Hadn't noticed mention of that in our little saga here yet)
>
> --
> =/   http://oldsmagnet.com   \===========/         Oldsmobile        \=
> |  mailto:442@oldsmagnet.com  |=========|         1897 -- 2004        |
> =\ Charley Buehner Sidney MT /===========\      Shot In The Back     /=
>

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

Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 15:19:35 +0000
From: "Andrew C. Green" <acg_o@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: WOW, a Ram Rod W-31 1968 442 !!!

>>>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2464099361&category=15287
>
>complicating matters slightly is a quote from near bottom of listing:
>                 ------------------
>>RM ONLINE is an online broker. Typically (unless otherwise notated), we 
>>have not seen, driven or inspected the vehicles we represent.
[...]
>(Hadn't noticed mention of that in our little saga here yet)

No, that's okay, I did see it. That's why I didn't go into my email to them 
with guns blazing; I'll see if pointing out the obvious flaws in the ad will 
generate a response from them. If they're dragging their feet, then they'll 
have a little more 'splainin' to do.

No response from them yet. I figure if I haven't heard anything in 24 hours 
(which will bring us up to late afternoon Chicago time), I'll try sending a 
similar note to the buyer and seller.

And hey, I don't have to be the only one doing this, you all...  :-)  But if 
you contact them, (1) be civil and (2) cite your sources, so the recipients 
can follow up the facts themselves.

P.S. This car looks... familiar. Didn't we have some similar flap maybe a 
year or two ago? If it wasn't the same car, perhaps it was the same outfit 
brokering the sale...?

- -- Andy

_________________________________________________________________
Store more e-mails with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage – 4 plans to choose from! 
http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/

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

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 08:29:03 -0700
From: "Schopen, Kenneth" <kenneth.schopen@medtronic.com>
Subject: Re: WOW, a Ram Rod W-31 1968 442 !!!

Yeah, I noticed that one, but I was too busy and forgot to have a 
look at the VIN to see if the owner was cloning the 442 part or the 
Ram Rod part (or both). At least it was parked in the "Modified" section 
and the owner wasn't trying to pass it off as the real thing.

Kenneth
1971 Cutlass Supreme convertible
Phoenix, AZ

> Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 18:00:44 -0700
> From: Mark Mullins <mark@marineaviation.org>
> Subject: Re: WOW, a Ram Rod W-31 1968 442 !!!
> 
> Chris,
> I saw one similar at the Phoenix Olds show last month.  I 
> figured the owner 
> just got carried away.
> http://mmullins2000.home.comcast.net/carshow3/Picture02.jpg
> 
> M
> 
> At 01:07 PM 3/8/2004 -0500, Chris Witt wrote:
> >And I thought that 442's had 344... VIN's, and the W31 pkg was not 
> >available on the 442 ?!?!?
> >
> >But, here it is, undeniably:
> >http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2464099361
> &category=15287
> >
> >-----------------------
> >Chris Witt
> >1303 W. Miller Rd.
> >Lansing MI 48911
> 
> Mark Mullins
> Tucson, Az

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

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 07:56:22 -0800 (PST)
From: kenneth treharn <kwt_1950@yahoo.com>
Subject: Oddball engine in a 1967 98

Another strange finding. My Nephew picked up a 1967
Olds 98 4-door Saturday in Bedford, Pa. The 2nd Owner
was a 77 year old Fellow, he bought it from the
original "Older Fellow." He said they both lived wihin
one mile of each other. A fellow named Ron Miller
(vice president of an Olds Club and owner of 61
Starfire conv and a 57 Conv} arranged the deal. Very
nice solid car and it runs beautiful. My Brother drove
it 180 miles back instead of trailering it as planned.
When they got it home we looked it over. It is loaded-
all power windows including the vents, cruise
controll, comfortron air, AM/FM 8 track,
telescopic/tilt wheel, rear defogger, and posi. Engine
is quiet as a Church mouse, 77,000 miles. Now the
mystery, E-block, (not D or F) C-heads 4/barrel.  So,
did they put 400's in the 98's?  Was it an option? We
don't think the engine was ever change. Later, Ken

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com

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

Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 11:35:15 -0500
From: Paul White <oldslist@netscape.net>
Subject: Re: Engine knocking

Thanks Ron!!!! Man if you have any Comfortron issues, you just let me 
know ;-) Ill run through hell or high water to get you an answer lol. A 
message like this is exactly what Im looking for. I dont have any 
friends or family that work on cars as much as you guys, so I dont have 
anyone to ask questions when things like this happen. I am going to try 
to do it your way probably this weekend or the next one. One question 
though...I know the bottom half of the bearing will probably drop out 
when I drop the caps, but how would I get the top half of the bearing out?

Can you elaborate on this bearing rolling procedure a bit? I know im a 
novice but I already plan on buying a new engine anyways if I cant do 
this so if I mess this up Ill be pissed but it wont be the end of the world.

paulbunyan

77w30442@comcast.net wrote:

>do not under any cicumstances  DO NOT remove all the mains at once,
>hers how i do it
>place large hunk of carboaed ubder car  raise  car.position stands out of the way,
>drain oil remove filter, leaving it drip for a while 30-60min.
>install drain plug and tighten, disconect battery remove starter, on my car with headers i have to raise engine and remove engine mounts i use a two 4*4 one on each side of each fender  with a notch in each block to prevent 3/8 home gas pipe and chain secured to engine  usually a/c bracket and alt bracket. i also have wedges cut to fit between frame and lower flange of headers just in case. i then remove pan.remove oil pumpand pick up tube.
>loosen all the mains after stampint the main and rod caps. i then pull each main first, if they are are all good no signs of any irregularities i then snug the main caps. then i check each rod brg, again must be smooth. i then remove  brgs one at a time and torque the main caps after each brg is installed.be careful to install the caps  correctley, use assembly lube on new brgs before installing them. keep hands clean and clean crank with break clean.
>i use lint free rags and snake them around the journels to wipe them down.
>you may need to insetrt a object in the oil hole in the crank to roll brg out, i use a nail with a head thickness i/2 of brg  thickness, the thrust brg usually is the biggest pain. once thats done on all except number 5 . i change the rope seal to the neopreme type, then roll that brg,   then do the rods
>reassemble fill with oil and fill oil filter with oil  dis able ignition crank it over a few times to ensure oil is pumped into the brgs then i fire it up and let it warm up. listen for noises and if all is well i let it down and take it for a drive.
>remember  keep it clean. any dirt/foriegn matter can kill the brgs in a short period.
>did i miss anything guys
>ron
>  
>
>>Thanks!!!! Just the type of answer I was looking for. Too bad I dont 
>>know what rolling the bearings mean, but I am assuming it means to 
>>install the bearings with the crank dropped but the engine still in the 
>>car??? (am i right lol) But thanks again, maybe I wont have to by a new 
>>engine after all. Im thinking the machine shop'll replace the rings, 
>>bearings, etc for under $500...so If I can save the crank all ill have 
>>to windup spending is the money for a rebuild kit and the machining 
>>costs. I guess the first thing I should do is drop the crank and look at 
>>the bearing journals???
>>
>>paulbunyan
>>
>>
>>77w30442@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>a knock is from worn bearings.the increased clearence also causes lower oil 
>>>      
>>>
>>psi. i have driven  some
>>    
>>
>>>455 for a year before i pulled the engine but was easy with the gas and others 
>>>      
>>>
>>blew in days.
>>    
>>
>>>its a gamble. pull the pan and roll new brgs in ther provideing crank is smooth 
>>>      
>>>
>>and no ridges on
>>    
>>
>>>journals
>>>ron
>>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>>From: "Paul White" <oldslist@netscape.net>
>>>To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
>>>Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 12:02 PM
>>>Subject: Re: Engine knocking
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Im just looking to make it a reliable, quick, daily driver. Im not
>>>>looking to keep all the original engine numbers, etc. How hard is it to
>>>>ruin a crank on a 455? Do you have to really dog it out or does it mess
>>>>up as soon as you hear it knock a few times? Thats my main question.
>>>>paulbunyan
>>>>
>>>>jkopf@optonline.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>Depends, do you want to preserve the car as original, need it as a daily
>>>>>driver, how important is cost, how fast do you need it done? A used engine
>>>>>is probably the cheapest and fastest way to go. But you don't know what your
>>>>>getting. Rebuilds start adding up fairly quickly. Rebuilding yours will take
>>>>>a couple of weeks to have back on the road.
>>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: oldsmobile-owner@chebucto.ns.ca
>>>>>[mailto:oldsmobile-owner@chebucto.ns.ca]On Behalf Of Paul White
>>>>>Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 9:24 AM
>>>>>To: Oldsmobile
>>>>>Subject: Engine knocking
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>All,
>>>>>Since I havent purchased my new engine just yet, I thought id ask the
>>>>>list's opinion on something. I have a bone stock 1970 Olds 98. I heard
>>>>>the engine knocking form the bottom of the block, plus a little
>>>>>screeching noise once or twice about every 4 minutes from the bottom as
>>>>>well. I drove the car for about 8 miles after I heard the knocking. The
>>>>>knocking did not get any worse. As soon as I got home I pulled the valve
>>>>>covers and there is no oil coming up through the pushrods. Im thinking I
>>>>>spun a bearing or something to that effect.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now, Im trying to figure out should I just buy a new engine orrrrr
>>>>>should I pull the old engine and take it to a machine shop to get fixed.
>>>>>Now money is definately a problem here so I am hoping i can save this
>>>>>engine. My question is...does anyone think this engine is worth taking
>>>>>to the shop to see if it can get saved or should I just count on having
>>>>>to trash it. It ran fine after it started knocking, just the knocking
>>>>>noise and no oil through the pushrods. It wasnt pinging or anything. I
>>>>>will be doing all this engine pulling in the street so if its probably
>>>>>trashed i wouldnt try taking the engine out and taking it to the machine
>>>>>shop, id just buy a new one. The shop does pretty good work. One of my
>>>>>neighbors had his 67 Stang 302 rebuilt for  $500 (he took all his parts
>>>>>and the engine up there still assembled) and he hasnt had any trouble yet.
>>>>>
>>>>>paulbunyan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>

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

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 12:02:38 -0500 
From: "Gerow, Daniel R." <dgerow@stonehill.edu>
Subject: Rear control arm choices

Oldsmo-holics,

I am getting ready to purchase a rear control arm package for the W-31 as
I'd like to replace the factory FE2 arms with solid units.  I put together a
small compendium of those packages I'm interested in, along with some
questions.  For those of you who have any experience with these items or
similar please, drop some knowledge.

1.) For my solely street driven car, do I need adjustable upper control
arms?
2.) Steel or aluminum?
3.) Other kits I'm missing?
4.) Milton, I believe you're running the E-brock package on Lizard, are you
not?

Price-wise, the Edelbrock kit seems to make the most sense, but are they
equal to Hotchkis?  I know two people who have the Metco lower arms on their
F-bodies and swear by them, otherwise I have no idea if they're of any
benefit over the other steel kits.

As always, TIA!

Here are the three contenders in no particular order:

Hotchkis rear suspension package
Part # 1803
Solid end (not channeled) rectangular lower and non-adjustable uppers
.120" wall steel tubing
Polygraphite bushings
Includes tubular braces
Black powder coated
Total price: $656.95
http://www.hotchkis.net/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/frames/catalog/68-72abody/1803.
htm?L+scstore+zwet4946+1078872700

Edelbrock
Part # 5205 - lower
Part # 5208 - upper
Part # 5211 - tubular braces
Part # 5217 - hardware
Specs are the same as Hotchkis set
Total price: $525.80
http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive/suspension.html

MetCo Motorsports
Part # MCA0009 - Lower with optional "drop" bracket
Part # MUC00S9 - Upper adjustable "on car"
Solid 6061-T6511 aluminum
clear anodized aluminum/powder coated steel
Polygraphite bushings
Hardware included
No tubular braces
Total price: $614.50
http://www.metco-inc.com/controlarms/contarms.shtml



- -------------------------------------
Daniel R. Gerow
'70 W-31 4spd post
dgerow@stonehill.edu
http://www.oldsrocket.com
- -------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 11:30:33 -0600
From: "Ian Dixon" <IDixon@sbrc.ca>
Subject: RE: Rear control arm choices

Dan,


>>>I am getting ready to purchase a rear control arm package for the
W-31 as
I'd like to replace the factory FE2 arms with solid units.  I put
together a
small compendium of those packages I'm interested in, along with some
questions.  For those of you who have any experience with these items or
similar please, drop some knowledge.<<<<
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I've had some limited experience (positive) with Global West suspension
parts for a different application.

http://www.globalwest.net/

They've lots of parts for 64 - 72 Chevelles, etc.  They may have what
you need.  I don't think they are cheap.

Best,
Ian Dixon   

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

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 10:50:51 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: buying a 2002 Olds Silhouette

To the List member who inquired about buying a 2002 Olds Silhouette,

As much as it pains me to say this, ***don't buy the 2002 Olds Silhouette
with 75,000 miles on it***, unless you are ready to pay at least $1,200+ to
repair it!!!! I'm absolutely certain the intake manifold on that 3.4 V6
engine is leaking coolant, either externally or internally or both.

The basic vehicle itself is great, but the 3.4 V6 engine has a major intake
manifold problem, just like other GM V6 engines. Apparently, the same GM
engineering team must be responsible for the intake problems on all GM V6
intake manifolds. That's very unfortunate, for the 3.4 V6 is a great
performing engine with power delivery and flexibility all out of proportion
to its size.

See the following E-mail I just sent to Pontiac Motor Division of GM for
why:


"Our 3.4 V6 engine in our '97 Pontiac Trans Sport had the intake gaskets
replaced at 67,062 miles under our extended warranty, due to external
coolant leaks and internal coolant leaks into the crankcase of the engine.
Almost immediately after the completion of the work, an oil leak appeared on
the oil pan. The local Pontiac dealer assured us that our rear main seal was
just leaking a little. The local Pontiac dealer was wrong. We have just
determined the front and rear intake manifold seals to the engine crankcase
have been seeping oil ever since the intake gasket was replaced under
warranty. It is now leaking oil like a sieve. Furthermore, we now have
another external engine coolant leak from the intake manifold gasket. The
vehicle now has only 87,378 miles. We are well aware of the problem GM has
with intake manifold gasket leaks on several GM V6 engines, including the
3.4 V6. A reasonable person would expect an intake gasket on a new engine to
last at least 100,000 miles. A reasonable person would expect a repair of
that gasket should also last 100,000 miles. What are Pontiac's intentions
regarding the failure of our warranty repair on this intake manifold gasket?
Our 72,000 mile extended warranty has expired, yet the repair was obviously
either not performed correctly, or there is a design flaw in the intake
manifold of the 3.4 V6 engine.

"Warranty repair performed at Quebedeaux Pontiac, 3566 E. Speedway, Tucson,
AZ 85716, invoice #PNCS182665, invoice date 25 January 2002."


At this point, I could not recommend to anyone to buy any GM product
equipped with a GM V6 engine, for fear the intake manifold will leak. I'm
sure clad I saved the invoice from the first warranty repair on the intake
gasket leak.

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com

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

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 11:00:57 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: Rear control arm choices

Daniel

> 1.) For my solely street driven car, do I need adjustable upper control
arms?


No. I didn't use the adjustable uppers on Thunder.


> 2.) Steel or aluminum?


Steel bars.


> 4.) Milton, I believe you're running the E-brock package on Lizard, are
you not?


Yes. I recommend them unquestionaly.


> Price-wise, the Edelbrock kit seems to make the most sense, but are they
equal to Hotchkis?


Yes. The Edelbrocks look like they were made by Hotchkis.

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com

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

Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 13:30:08 -0500
From: John Kelsey <ribspot@pop4.net>
Subject: bearing rolling

snip   Can you elaborate on this bearing rolling procedure a bit? I know 
im a novice but I already plan on buying a new engine anyways if I cant 
do this so if I mess this up Ill be pissed but it wont be the end of the 
world.

Paul
    I've been following this thread and thought maybe an explanation 
from someone else might help. Get the oil pan off, Unbolt the rod 
bearings,   (I usually do one at a time) Ease the bearing cap off. It 
may or may not have half of the bearing in it. If It does not reach up 
with your fingers and pull/pry the lower half of the bearing out and set 
it aside. Now the journal will have an oil hole in it. You will need a 
nail or a screw which will just fit into that oil hole. The head on the 
nail or screw should be no thicker than the bearing. You may have to 
grind it down a little to achieve that. Now turn the crank gently and 
the head of that nail/screw will ease the top half of the bearing out 
where you can get to it. You can usually just slip them back in. 
Remember they are slightly keyed on one end so they will only go in one 
way. I hope  you remembered to check the orientation of the bearing cap 
so you can reinstall it facing the right way. I always use plenty of 
assembly lube (available at any good parts store)
Good luck and post again if any of this doesn't make sense to you
John Kelsey
Dayton Ohio

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

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 13:51:36 -0600
From: "Marty Henson" <marty-henson@clayton-engineering.com>
Subject: Dipstick Interference

Group,
I've subscribed to this group in hopes of learning more about
Oldsmobiles and for technical assistance with reconstruction and
maintenance of my '72 Culass with 442 option.  I hope someone can help
with a problem I've encountered between the transmission dipstick and
the heater control valve which mounts on the right rear of the intake
manifold.  The motor was originally a 350 and I'm changing to a 455.
With the dipstick mounted to the rear of the passenger head, it is
immediately below the heater valve making it practically impossible to
remove. The transmission is a TH400. Any suggestions would be
appreciated. 
Marty Henson 
1972 Cutlass with 442 Option 
1975 Camaro
1967 Jaguar E-Type
1959 Willys Wagon
1972 Chevy Cheyenne Super
 

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

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 14:01:36 -0600
From: "Mike Schlottman" <mschlott@spe.org>
Subject: RE: Dipstick Interference

The output of the heater control valve should point slightly forward.  About 15 to 20 degrees.  This should place the dipstick tube behind and to the left of the heater hose.  It is still difficult to get to, but it should be possible.

     mike

Mike Schlottman
Sr. Systems Administrator
Society of Petroleum Engineers
222 Palisades Creek Drive 
Richardson, TX 75083
972-952-9382


 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Marty Henson [mailto:marty-henson@clayton-engineering.com]
 > Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 1:52 PM
 > To: oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca
 > Subject: Dipstick Interference
 > 
 > 
 > Group,
 > I've subscribed to this group in hopes of learning more about
 > Oldsmobiles and for technical assistance with reconstruction and
 > maintenance of my '72 Culass with 442 option.  I hope 
 > someone can help
 > with a problem I've encountered between the transmission dipstick and
 > the heater control valve which mounts on the right rear of the intake
 > manifold.  The motor was originally a 350 and I'm changing to a 455.
 > With the dipstick mounted to the rear of the passenger head, it is
 > immediately below the heater valve making it practically 
 > impossible to
 > remove. The transmission is a TH400. Any suggestions would be
 > appreciated. 
 > Marty Henson 
 > 1972 Cutlass with 442 Option 
 > 1975 Camaro
 > 1967 Jaguar E-Type
 > 1959 Willys Wagon
 > 1972 Chevy Cheyenne Super
 >  
 > 
 > 

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

Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 20:04:06 +0000
From: 62oldsfan@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Oddball engine in a 1967 98

> So,
> did they put 400's in the 98's?

They shouldn't have.  98s came standard with 425s.  So did the Delta & Delta Custom.  Delmonts came with 330s, but the 425 was optional on those (called Delmont 425s).

Paul

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

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 14:20:19 -0600
From: "Marty Henson" <marty-henson@clayton-engineering.com>
Subject: RE: bearing rolling

I can't hold out anymore from putting in my two cents.  I don't believe
anyone can properly check and replace rod and main bearings with the
engine still in the car. The most likely problem is with the oil pump or
crankshaft journals for it to be losing oil pressure and knocking. I
suspect that you'll be repairing the engine in the near future, if you
don't pull it out and rebuild it.  Remember Murphy's Law.
Marty - '72 Cutlass
- -----Original Message-----
From: oldsmobile-owner@chebucto.ns.ca
[mailto:oldsmobile-owner@chebucto.ns.ca] On Behalf Of John Kelsey
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 12:30 PM
To: olds list
Subject: bearing rolling

snip   Can you elaborate on this bearing rolling procedure a bit? I know

im a novice but I already plan on buying a new engine anyways if I cant 
do this so if I mess this up Ill be pissed but it wont be the end of the

world.

Paul
    I've been following this thread and thought maybe an explanation 
from someone else might help. Get the oil pan off, Unbolt the rod 
bearings,   (I usually do one at a time) Ease the bearing cap off. It 
may or may not have half of the bearing in it. If It does not reach up 
with your fingers and pull/pry the lower half of the bearing out and set

it aside. Now the journal will have an oil hole in it. You will need a 
nail or a screw which will just fit into that oil hole. The head on the 
nail or screw should be no thicker than the bearing. You may have to 
grind it down a little to achieve that. Now turn the crank gently and 
the head of that nail/screw will ease the top half of the bearing out 
where you can get to it. You can usually just slip them back in. 
Remember they are slightly keyed on one end so they will only go in one 
way. I hope  you remembered to check the orientation of the bearing cap 
so you can reinstall it facing the right way. I always use plenty of 
assembly lube (available at any good parts store)
Good luck and post again if any of this doesn't make sense to you
John Kelsey
Dayton Ohio

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

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 14:24:22 -0600
From: "Marty Henson" <marty-henson@clayton-engineering.com>
Subject: RE: Dipstick Interference

Mike,
The heater control valve is tee shaped with the vacumn pot to the rear
and the hose connection to the front.  As you indicated, the manual
shows the hose portion to point 30 to 45 degrees to the right of
centerline/forward.  The vacumn pot is still directly above the
dipstick.

Marty
- -----Original Message-----
From: oldsmobile-owner@chebucto.ns.ca
[mailto:oldsmobile-owner@chebucto.ns.ca] On Behalf Of Mike Schlottman
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 2:02 PM
To: oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca
Subject: RE: Dipstick Interference

The output of the heater control valve should point slightly forward.
About 15 to 20 degrees.  This should place the dipstick tube behind and
to the left of the heater hose.  It is still difficult to get to, but it
should be possible.

     mike

Mike Schlottman
Sr. Systems Administrator
Society of Petroleum Engineers
222 Palisades Creek Drive 
Richardson, TX 75083
972-952-9382


 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Marty Henson [mailto:marty-henson@clayton-engineering.com]
 > Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 1:52 PM
 > To: oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca
 > Subject: Dipstick Interference
 > 
 > 
 > Group,
 > I've subscribed to this group in hopes of learning more about
 > Oldsmobiles and for technical assistance with reconstruction and
 > maintenance of my '72 Culass with 442 option.  I hope 
 > someone can help
 > with a problem I've encountered between the transmission dipstick and
 > the heater control valve which mounts on the right rear of the intake
 > manifold.  The motor was originally a 350 and I'm changing to a 455.
 > With the dipstick mounted to the rear of the passenger head, it is
 > immediately below the heater valve making it practically 
 > impossible to
 > remove. The transmission is a TH400. Any suggestions would be
 > appreciated. 
 > Marty Henson 
 > 1972 Cutlass with 442 Option 
 > 1975 Camaro
 > 1967 Jaguar E-Type
 > 1959 Willys Wagon
 > 1972 Chevy Cheyenne Super
 >  
 > 
 > 

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

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 14:44:44 -0600
From: Kevin Wright <krwright@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: WOW, a Ram Rod W-31 1968 442 !!!

Geez, don't you know that *all* V8 cutlasses are 442s, even if they  
don't have badges or 442 equipment?
:)

krw
On Mar 8, 2004, at 5:37 PM, oldsmobile-digest wrote:

> Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 13:07:53 -0500
> From: "Christopher Witt" <rocketscience442@hotmail.com>
> Subject: WOW, a Ram Rod W-31 1968 442 !!!
>
> And I thought that 442's had 344... VIN's, and the W31 pkg was not  
> available
> on the 442 ?!?!?
>
> But, here it is, undeniably:
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? 
> ViewItem&item=2464099361&category=15287
>
> - -----------------------
> Chris Witt
> 1303 W. Miller Rd.
> Lansing MI 48911
>
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: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 14:52:27 -0600
From: Kevin Wright <krwright@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: High-Tech Brake System Helps Drivers was: ABS, lifesaver or Satan's tool?

Which really only proves that people have no clue how to brake or  
control a car without all these safety mechanisms. That being the case,  
I suppose that they're a good thing. Those that don't want to learn to  
drive can drive those, and I'll stick with my unsafe rolling ancient  
history.
Maybe they should perform this same test with trained high-performance  
drivers, and see what the difference is?

krw
On Mar 8, 2004, at 5:37 PM, oldsmobile-digest wrote:

> Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 15:14:44 -0700
> From: Cliff Simpson <csimpson@ucalgary.ca>
> Subject: High-Tech Brake System Helps Drivers was: ABS, lifesaver or  
> Satan's tool?
>
>  From
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=624&ncid=753&e=5&u=/ 
> ap/20040308/ap_on_sc/stability_control
>
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!

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

End of oldsmobile-digest V1 #4810
*********************************
