
oldsmobile-digest      Wednesday, March 31 2004      Volume 01 : Number 4838



Re: O2 sensors with carbureted engines
Re: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes
Re: Gas prices, gas theft?
RE: Dealing with Generous Motors
Re: Gas prices, gas theft?
RE: More Dyno Stuff
RE: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes
More Dyno
Re: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes
RE: More Dyno
Re: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes
Re: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes
Re: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes
Re: More Dyno
Re: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes
RE: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes
Re: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes
Re: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes
RE: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes
Re: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes
Has anybody seen this?
RE: Has anybody seen this?
Re: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes
Re: Rollin' in my Cutty
Re: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes
Re: Dealing with Generous Motors
Re: Has anybody seen this?
Re: Dealing with Generous Motors
Re: Has anybody seen this?

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:09:35 -0400
From: "Tour Op & Travel Agency Trade 2000" <travelchile@manquehue.net>
Subject: Re: O2 sensors with carbureted engines

I have. On both cars. Really nice stuff, helps a lot, taking out a lot of of
guessing.
The lambda sensor is not linear, very sensible close to the 14.7 ratio,
quite different when lean or rich.  The graph of voltage versus richness is
a sort of horizontal S shape.
You can use a digital voltmeter as well, but I like the in-dash led
indicator, nice and visible. Summit has one at 34 or some.
Matt
> Have any of you installed an O2 sensor to aid in tuning your carburetors?
I have toyed with the idea but have never really investigated whether it
would be a useful tool.  Are there any good articles or books on the
subject?
>
>     mike

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 11:45:54 -0500
From: Joe Vahabzadeh <king_v@mindless.com>
Subject: Re: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes

At 10:51 PM 03/30/2004 -0500, Randy wrote:
>Hello
>Sorta reminds me of what my racin buddy said about the pick me up trucks
with huge
> wheels on them.
>Does it not make sense if the dia. of the circle/tire is larger,,, then
the brake
> shoe/pad needs to be bigger lever also?

I wondered about this myself.  I was at first under the impression that
bigger-diameter tire/wheels required bigger brakes because of the extra
leverage.

But then I thought, well, at 60MPH, if you double your wheel diameter, you
halve your rotations.  Thus the tire would only make a complete revolution
once where it formerly did so twice.

So is the fact that you have less leverage made up for by the fact that the
wheel is rotating more slowly?

I never tried to figure out whether this was the case or not, because
frankly, I'm not sure what formulas are used to figure it out.

Those of you who know the physics for this, how does it work?

	- Joe Vahabzadeh

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:39:46 +0000
From: "Andrew C. Green" <acg_o@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Gas prices, gas theft?

>I suspect if they'd just chop off some hands, there would be much less 
>thievery.

...and a lot more full-service gas stations, too.

"Regular or Premium, sir? Just wave your stump..."

- -- Andy

_________________________________________________________________
Check out MSN PC Safety & Security to help ensure your PC is protected and 
safe. http://specials.msn.com/msn/security.asp

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:41:54 +0000
From: "Andrew C. Green" <acg_o@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Dealing with Generous Motors

>The second spell it had, I got it to the dealer,
>expecting them to say it works fine for them.  But
>they didn't...they had the same problem!  Except, they
>couldn't diagnose it either - they just waited around
>until the system started working correctly again.

Find another dealer. If the first one can't find the problem (especially for 
a low-tech system like the HVAC), you're not doing yourself any favors by 
sticking around there. I doubt it really has to be a Buick dealer these 
days, either; any GM outlet will be working off the same database.

- -- Andy

_________________________________________________________________
Get tax tips, tools and access to IRS forms – all in one place at MSN Money! 
http://moneycentral.msn.com/tax/home.asp

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:28:45 -0500
From: james.zito@ps.ge.com
Subject: Re: Gas prices, gas theft?

>From Mark Mullins.......... or is that Mark Muslims??

I suspect if they'd just chop off some hands, there would be much less=20
thievery.

Jim
69 442 conv

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:33:29 -0500
From: Robert Barry <rbarry@providence.edu>
Subject: RE: More Dyno Stuff

At 11:00 AM 3/31/2004, you wrote:
>So then how is it that the '72 W-30 was rated 300 hp @ 4700 RPM and
>410 ft-lbs @ 3200 RPM AT THE REAR WHEELS? Or am I mistaken as to what SAE Net
>ratings meant in 1972?

NET rating is not at the rear wheels, but with the standard corrections 
that it sounds like this shop was using to calculate that 299hp/410ft-lbs 
figure. Actually, I'm amazed it would be so similar.


_______________________________________
Bob Barry  MailTo:rbarry@providence.edu
http://home.off-road.com/~wagoneer/ 

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:31:31 -0500
From: "Gerow, Daniel R." <dgerow@stonehill.edu>
Subject: RE: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes

- -----Original Message-----
>From: Joe Vahabzadeh [mailto:king_v@mindless.com] 
>I wondered about this myself.  I was at first under the impression that
bigger-diameter tire/wheels required 
>bigger brakes because of the extra leverage.
>
>But then I thought, well, at 60MPH, if you double your wheel diameter, you
halve your rotations.  Thus the tire 
>would only make a complete revolution once where it formerly did so twice.
>
>So is the fact that you have less leverage made up for by the fact that the
wheel is rotating more slowly?
>
>I never tried to figure out whether this was the case or not, because
frankly, I'm not sure what formulas are 
>used to figure it out.



Good points Joe...always something I wanted to understand specifically.  I
assume that weight plays a role here as well.  If you go from 14" steel
wheels to 20" chromed-out bling bling wrapped in a 30 series tire, even if
the overall diameter stays the same, the total weight (wheel+tire) changes
thus potentially increasing the rolling mass that needs to be stopped.

So technically speaking:

brake requirement = change in weight + change in overall diameter/# of
rotations - thousands of dollars for 6 piston alcon calipers and 13" rotors.
:)

 ~ Dan

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

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:41:40 -0500
From: "Paul Tumolo" <ptumolo@comcast.net>
Subject: More Dyno

My dyno numbers reflect what I wanted: good vacuum, low end torque, good
drivability. My combination is one step up from stock. I did not expect
400+ horsepower. The cam (Engle 20-22) is fairly small for a BB Olds. I
wanted to stick with a low rise manifold so I can use my OAI set up.
And, I don't want the hassle of headers either.

Mark Princes' numbers are impressive. But it takes a big cam and a
significant investment in head work to get to that point. I don't race
my car, so I traded off the big HP numbers for drivability.

The shop owner told me that 500 HP out of a BB Olds is doable, but the
expense is much higher than what I did. And, I have nearly $5,000 in
mine.

I am looking forward to swapping the new engine in. The throttle
response on the dyno was excellent. Should make a great street cruiser.

BTW, BB Olds heads have the same flow characteristics as stock SB Chevy
heads.....

Paul Tumolo
1970 442
OCA # 31967

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:20:30 EST
From: Flipx99@wmconnect.com
Subject: Re: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes

- --part1_4f.3c3d9e21.2d9c65ee_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 3/30/2004 10:05:52 PM Central Standard Time, 
Cutlass7276@netscape.net writes:


> Also is it harder to hold a car on the line at the strip during launch rpms 
> with a larger frt tire and same stock pads/shoes???


I actually test a set of 20" rims on my recently deceased G body. They are 
nice for flash but not for anything else but sitting still. I did not notice 
that much of a braking problem but there are issues in turning, accelerating, and 
ride. It made it much more bumpy, which I perceive is a product of the 
smaller tire.





- --part1_4f.3c3d9e21.2d9c65ee_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3D2 PTSIZE=3D10>In a message=20=
dated 3/30/2004 10:05:52 PM Central Standard Time, Cutlass7276@netscape.net=20=
writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-=
LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Also is it harder to hold a=
 car on the line at the strip during launch rpms with a larger frt tire and=20=
same stock pads/shoes???</FONT><FONT  COLOR=3D"#000000" BACK=3D"#ffffff" sty=
le=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D3 PTSIZE=3D10 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" F=
ACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR=3D"#000000" BACK=3D"#ffffff" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COL=
OR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D2 PTSIZE=3D10 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=
=3D"0">
<BR>I actually test a set of 20" rims on my recently deceased G body. They a=
re nice for flash but not for anything else but sitting still. I did not not=
ice that much of a braking problem but there are issues in turning, accelera=
ting, and ride. It made it much more bumpy, which I perceive is a product of=
 the smaller tire.
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR=3D"#000000" BACK=3D"#ffffff" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COL=
OR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D3 PTSIZE=3D10 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=
=3D"0">
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR=3D"#000000" BACK=3D"#ffffff" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COL=
OR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D2 PTSIZE=3D10 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=
=3D"0"></FONT><FONT  COLOR=3D"#000000" BACK=3D"#ffffff" style=3D"BACKGROUND-=
COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D3 PTSIZE=3D12 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LAN=
G=3D"0">
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR=3D"#000000" BACK=3D"#ffffff" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COL=
OR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D2 PTSIZE=3D10 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=
=3D"0">
<BR></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_4f.3c3d9e21.2d9c65ee_boundary--

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:07:55 -0500
From: "Christian Sager" <chris.sager@cox.net>
Subject: RE: More Dyno

Congrats on the numbers!

My $6200 or so 403 runs about 400HP(5100RPM) and 455lb/ft(4000RPM - over
350lb/ft from 2500RPM to 5700RPM).  It has worked out to be a great
combo, albeit with a lot of learning, digging, tuning, and custom work.

How much better would a 403 rev than a 455?  Seems the short stroke
would be a benefit here.

Christian

- -----Original Message-----
From: oldsmobile-owner@chebucto.ns.ca
[mailto:oldsmobile-owner@chebucto.ns.ca] On Behalf Of Paul Tumolo
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 12:42 PM
To: Oldsmobile-Digest
Subject: More Dyno

My dyno numbers reflect what I wanted: good vacuum, low end torque, good
drivability. My combination is one step up from stock. I did not expect
400+ horsepower. The cam (Engle 20-22) is fairly small for a BB Olds. I
wanted to stick with a low rise manifold so I can use my OAI set up.
And, I don't want the hassle of headers either.

Mark Princes' numbers are impressive. But it takes a big cam and a
significant investment in head work to get to that point. I don't race
my car, so I traded off the big HP numbers for drivability.

The shop owner told me that 500 HP out of a BB Olds is doable, but the
expense is much higher than what I did. And, I have nearly $5,000 in
mine.

I am looking forward to swapping the new engine in. The throttle
response on the dyno was excellent. Should make a great street cruiser.

BTW, BB Olds heads have the same flow characteristics as stock SB Chevy
heads.....

Paul Tumolo
1970 442
OCA # 31967

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:34:40 -0500
From: Joe Vahabzadeh <king_v@mindless.com>
Subject: Re: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes

At 01:20 PM 03/31/2004 EST, Flipx99 wrote:
>I actually test a set of 20" rims on my recently deceased G body. They are
>nice for flash but not for anything else but sitting still. I did not
>notice that much of a braking problem but there are issues in turning,
>accelerating, and ride. It made it much more bumpy, which I perceive is a
>product of the smaller tire. 

Ahh, yes . . .  it was once described to me that 35 to 45 series tires give
a ride that is akin to riding on solid rock.

Not speaking from personal experience, though....


	- Joe Vahabzadeh

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:36:40 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes

> I actually test a set of 20" rims on my recently deceased G body.
> It made it much more bumpy, which I perceive is a product of the
> smaller tire.


There's not enough sidewall left to flex and help absorb road shocks on 20
inch diameter wheels with a 3-4 inch sidewall. For cornering, that can
actually be worse. If the road is rough, the large diameter wheel with a
very short sidewall tire can bounce on the high spots, skip the low spots,
(washboarding) and the car *will* lose traction in the corner. Very short
sidewall road racing and NASCAR type tires work very well on a constantly
maintained and prepared race track. The street is a whole different story.
On the street, I prefer the engineered sidewall flex for efficient cornering
and flexibility over rough roads of a really good radial in either a 70 or
60 series tire. That will usually mean staying with 14 to 16 inch wheels,
depending on the car, with 15 inch probably being the most common.

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:33:47 -0500
From: Paul White <oldslist@netscape.net>
Subject: Re: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes

Actually am going to put some 16 or 17 inch spokes on my 1970 Ols 98 
once I put this engine in here :-) Im trying to keep a good ride though 
so Im definately not gonna have like 55 or 60 series tires on er. I 
might even waste some money on some Vogues...

paulbunyan

king_v@mindless.com wrote:

>At 01:20 PM 03/31/2004 EST, Flipx99 wrote:
>  
>
>>I actually test a set of 20" rims on my recently deceased G body. They are
>>nice for flash but not for anything else but sitting still. I did not
>>notice that much of a braking problem but there are issues in turning,
>>accelerating, and ride. It made it much more bumpy, which I perceive is a
>>product of the smaller tire. 
>>    
>>
>
>Ahh, yes . . .  it was once described to me that 35 to 45 series tires give
>a ride that is akin to riding on solid rock.
>
>Not speaking from personal experience, though....
>
>
>    - Joe Vahabzadeh
>  
>

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:48:11 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: More Dyno

> How much better would a 403 rev than a 455?  Seems the short stroke
> would be a benefit here.


Yes, shorter stroke is always preferred, unless you want the cubes. The 403,
in concept, has the ability to out-rev a 455 anytime, as long as the pistons
are ultra lightweight and the block webbing won't pull out. The pistons are
no problem. The lower block is. The block wasn't designed for high RPM use,
so you do what you have to do.

Actually, as designed, the 330, 350, and 425 engines are the best for
all-out high RPM racing, with the 400E close behind. The 455 is fine, but at
a lower RPM, unless more money is poured into it. The 403 has great
potential for a killer street engine, just the way it is.

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:55:21 -0500
From: "swanny" <swannys78@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes

Milton,
with all due respect, you are a book waiting to be read.
With that being said, you're 'infinite wisdom' is respected. I look forward
to hearing your opinion on subjects posted here.
 With that said, these wheels and tires actually serve no purpose in the
racing aspect for cars what so ever.
For show? I don't really like it. Do these wheels have any other advantage
beside's show? This has become a fad for youngin's to follow. Manufacturers
are making there money for the "Bling Bling" of it all. I don't condone it.
But if you think about the pedal bikes back in the 60's, they had solid
rubber slicks on the rear tire, and it was only good for skidding on dry
cement. Doesn't the same principle apply with 3" of rubber on a 20" pedal
bike?
Pat Swanton.




." <imp@theriver.com>
To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes


> > I actually test a set of 20" rims on my recently deceased G body.
> > It made it much more bumpy, which I perceive is a product of the
> > smaller tire.
>
>
> There's not enough sidewall left to flex and help absorb road shocks on 20
> inch diameter wheels with a 3-4 inch sidewall. For cornering, that can
> actually be worse. If the road is rough, the large diameter wheel with a
> very short sidewall tire can bounce on the high spots, skip the low spots,
> (washboarding) and the car *will* lose traction in the corner. Very short
> sidewall road racing and NASCAR type tires work very well on a constantly
> maintained and prepared race track. The street is a whole different story.
> On the street, I prefer the engineered sidewall flex for efficient
cornering
> and flexibility over rough roads of a really good radial in either a 70 or
> 60 series tire. That will usually mean staying with 14 to 16 inch wheels,
> depending on the car, with 15 inch probably being the most common.
>
> Milton Schick
> 1964 442 Cutlass
> imp@theriver.com
>
>
>
>

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 20:02:06 +0000
From: "Andrew C. Green" <acg_o@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes

>Good points Joe...always something I wanted to understand specifically.  I
>assume that weight plays a role here as well.  If you go from 14" steel
>wheels to 20" chromed-out bling bling wrapped in a 30 series tire, even if
>the overall diameter stays the same, the total weight (wheel+tire) changes
>thus potentially increasing the rolling mass that needs to be stopped.

I rather doubt the change in wheel weight will affect the braking loads all 
that much: you're talking about a cumulative change of maybe 100 lbs. either 
way on a vehicle that can weigh upwards of 2 tons.

As for the load on the brake pads exerted by custom wheels vs. the 
originals, the bottom line is whether the wheel is the same diameter as 
before. How much of its middle is rubber vs. steel isn't really the issue; 
it's the distance from the hub centerline to the contact patch of the 
roadway (i.e. the radius of the wheel) that determines the loading. It'll 
take more braking force to haul down a larger diameter wheel.

It'll take less force to stop a smaller-diameter wheel, but I believe it 
will be easier to skid with a smaller wheel, since it will be easier to 
overcome its turning (traction) force, as compared with the same braking 
power being exerted on a larger wheel. (Try holding a one-foot ruler in your 
fist by one end and see how hard it is to resist its turning your wrist when 
you press on the other end. Then repeat the same maneuver with a yardstick, 
and see how much more leverage there is. Now picture a brake assembly on one 
end trying to resist the turning force on the other end. The larger diameter 
will be harder to stop.)

- -- Andy

_________________________________________________________________
Free up your inbox with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage. Multiple plans available. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=hotmail/es2&ST=1/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 20:04:07 +0000
From: "Andrew C. Green" <acg_o@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes

>Milton,
>with all due respect, you are a book waiting to be read.
>With that being said, you're 'infinite wisdom' is respected. I look forward
>to hearing your opinion on subjects posted here.

Gawd, yes, he writes almost as much as I do, the only difference being that 
he knows what he's talking about.  :-)

- -- Andy

_________________________________________________________________
Get reliable access on MSN 9 Dial-up. 3 months for the price of 1! 
(Limited-time offer) 
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup&pgmarket=en-us&ST=1/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:10:41 -0500
From: "swanny" <swannys78@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes

I always wait for Miltons reply on subject matter.

Pat....
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew C. Green" <acg_o@hotmail.com>
To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes


> >Milton,
> >with all due respect, you are a book waiting to be read.
> >With that being said, you're 'infinite wisdom' is respected. I look
forward
> >to hearing your opinion on subjects posted here.
>
> Gawd, yes, he writes almost as much as I do, the only difference being
that
> he knows what he's talking about.  :-)
>
> -- Andy
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get reliable access on MSN 9 Dial-up. 3 months for the price of 1!
> (Limited-time offer)
>
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup&pgmarket=en-us&ST=1/go/onm00200361ave/
direct/01/
>

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:39:46 -0500
From: Robert Barry <rbarry@providence.edu>
Subject: RE: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes

At 12:31 PM 3/31/2004, you wrote:
> >But then I thought, well, at 60MPH, if you double your wheel diameter, you
>halve your rotations.  Thus the tire
> >would only make a complete revolution once where it formerly did so twice.
> >
> >So is the fact that you have less leverage made up for by the fact that the
>wheel is rotating more slowly?
> >
>Good points Joe...always something I wanted to understand specifically.  I
>assume that weight plays a role here as well.  If you go from 14" steel
>wheels to 20" chromed-out bling bling wrapped in a 30 series tire, even if
>the overall diameter stays the same, the total weight (wheel+tire) changes
>thus potentially increasing the rolling mass that needs to be stopped.
[snip]

The momentum of the car remains the same; the leverage of the wheel against 
the caliper changes, however, so while speed of the rotor at the caliper 
may decrease, the torque seen by the caliper will correspondingly rise.

In any case, in the world of trucks with big tires, it's standard to 
upgrade to 4-wheel discs with at least 12" or 13" rotors and use 
dual-piston calipers from a one-ton truck to stop the 38"-44" tires.


_______________________________________
Bob Barry  MailTo:rbarry@providence.edu
http://home.off-road.com/~wagoneer/ 

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:35:23 -0500
From: Robert Barry <rbarry@providence.edu>
Subject: Re: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes

>There's not enough sidewall left to flex and help absorb road shocks on 20
>inch diameter wheels with a 3-4 inch sidewall. For cornering, that can
>actually be worse. If the road is rough, the large diameter wheel with a
>very short sidewall tire can bounce on the high spots, skip the low spots,
>(washboarding) and the car *will* lose traction in the corner. Very short
>sidewall road racing and NASCAR type tires work very well on a constantly
>maintained and prepared race track. The street is a whole different story.
>On the street, I prefer the engineered sidewall flex for efficient cornering
>and flexibility over rough roads of a really good radial in either a 70 or
>60 series tire. That will usually mean staying with 14 to 16 inch wheels,
>depending on the car, with 15 inch probably being the most common.

Bingo.

In fact, NASCAR and F1 don't even use as low a profile tire as you see on 
many of these performance street-cars. Sidewall deflection is only ONE 
factor in a car's handling; if everything else in the car's suspension and 
weight-balance is not designed to work with that short sidewall, handling 
will actually be worse with that shorter sidewall.

Plus, I think some of the rubber-band tires just look stupid... Give me a 
set of L60's out back and G60's up front any day... ;)


_______________________________________
Bob Barry  MailTo:rbarry@providence.edu
http://home.off-road.com/~wagoneer/ 

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:00:10 -0500
From: "swanny" <swannys78@adelphia.net>
Subject: Has anybody seen this?

The first pic is from elsewhere
http://i4.ebayimg.com/03/i/01/93/31/a5_1_s.JPG

This is the second pic.
http://www.oldsmobility.com/images/cccrear.jpg
 Is this a canadian option?
Pat Swanton

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:28:28 -0500
From: "David J. Duffner - Trofeoworld.com" <oldslist@trofeoworld.com>
Subject: RE: Has anybody seen this?

>-----Original Message-----
>From: oldsmobile-owner@chebucto.ns.ca 
>[mailto:oldsmobile-owner@chebucto.ns.ca] On Behalf Of swanny
>Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 4:00 PM
>To: oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca
>Subject: Has anybody seen this?
>
> Is this a canadian option?

	If it's 35-40% less than you expected,
it's Canadian! <Grin>  (Sorry, had to do it...)

    David J. Duffner
    Editor
    TrofeoWorld.com

========================================================
Trofeoworld.com - Your Oldsmobile Toronado
Gen III/IV and GM E-body Resource! - www.trofeoworld.com
========================================================

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:33:51 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes

Pat,

Click on http://www.racegoodyear.com/products/ultrahigh.html .
That will give you a good idea what's being used on Formula One race cars.
Remember, these cars have a center-of-gravity about 6" off the pavement.
They run on smooth race tracks, at least smooth compared to an average
street or highway. All of these Goodyear pure racing tires (*not* DOT
approved) cost an arm and a leg, are for 18" wheels, and have sidewall
profiles ranging from 30 to 45. For this type of racing, the radial tire has
a rigid sidewall.

I would assume that's where the styling fad for large diameter wheels came
from.

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com


- ----- Original Message -----
From: "swanny" <swannys78@adelphia.net>
To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes


> Milton,
> with all due respect, you are a book waiting to be read.
> With that being said, you're 'infinite wisdom' is respected. I look
forward
> to hearing your opinion on subjects posted here.
>  With that said, these wheels and tires actually serve no purpose in the
> racing aspect for cars what so ever.
> For show? I don't really like it. Do these wheels have any other advantage
> beside's show? This has become a fad for youngin's to follow.
Manufacturers
> are making there money for the "Bling Bling" of it all. I don't condone
it.
> But if you think about the pedal bikes back in the 60's, they had solid
> rubber slicks on the rear tire, and it was only good for skidding on dry
> cement. Doesn't the same principle apply with 3" of rubber on a 20" pedal
> bike?
> Pat Swanton.
>
>
>
>
> ." <imp@theriver.com>
> To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 2:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes
>
>
> > > I actually test a set of 20" rims on my recently deceased G body.
> > > It made it much more bumpy, which I perceive is a product of the
> > > smaller tire.
> >
> >
> > There's not enough sidewall left to flex and help absorb road shocks on
20
> > inch diameter wheels with a 3-4 inch sidewall. For cornering, that can
> > actually be worse. If the road is rough, the large diameter wheel with a
> > very short sidewall tire can bounce on the high spots, skip the low
spots,
> > (washboarding) and the car *will* lose traction in the corner. Very
short
> > sidewall road racing and NASCAR type tires work very well on a
constantly
> > maintained and prepared race track. The street is a whole different
story.
> > On the street, I prefer the engineered sidewall flex for efficient
> cornering
> > and flexibility over rough roads of a really good radial in either a 70
or
> > 60 series tire. That will usually mean staying with 14 to 16 inch
wheels,
> > depending on the car, with 15 inch probably being the most common.
> >
> > Milton Schick
> > 1964 442 Cutlass
> > imp@theriver.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:37:26 -0600
From: Kevin Wright <krwright@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Rollin' in my Cutty

Ye flipping gods!
  I saw a Monte Carlo like that around here recently. I love the fact 
that they've actually managed to find wheels that are a larger diameter 
than the original *tires*... Not to mention that the sky-high 4x4 
stance kind of runs counter to the long-n-low trend... I don't even 
want to think of how that thing rides.
Further, there's always the giggle-snort that he's just spent more in 
wheels and tires than the car is worth!

Huge rims like that always remind me of the 'big jeans' thing a couple 
of years ago. Oversized jeans were cool, but then it kind of ran away 
and you ended up with jeans that had cuffs larger than the waistband! 
Same thing with the wheels - it's evolved into a 'mine is bigger than 
yours' contest... From hip straight into the ridiculous.

krw

On Mar 29, 2004, at 10:13 PM, oldsmobile-digest wrote:

> Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:53:06 -0500
> From: robert.demuth@prudential.com
> Subject: Rollin' in my Cutty
>
> I saw this on the traffic choked 3 hour, 6 mile ride from Daytona
> International Speedway to my hotel on the beach.  I just had to share 
> it
> with the list, for it is too good to keep all to myself.  If the owner 
> of
> this is on the list, come clean.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/rld96bbb/daytona04.htm
>
> Disclaimers:
> (1)  Sorry for the crappy phone cam quality of the pix.  I used what I 
> had
> handy.
> (2)  I apologize in advance if some of you attempt to access the page 
> and
> my bandwidth limit has already been exceeded.  That has happened when 
> I've
> posted links in the past -- the bw limit and the annoying ad (which can
> easily be minimized) are drawbacks of free hosting, but I don't use it
> enough to pay for it ;)
>
> Bob DeMuth.
> '72 88 conv.
> some other stuff
>
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: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:43:30 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: Rollin' in my Cutty/brakes

> Sidewall deflection is only ONE
> factor in a car's handling; if everything else in the car's suspension and
> weight-balance is not designed to work with that short sidewall, handling
> will actually be worse with that shorter sidewall.


Correct. Short sidewall tires really need a very low center-of-gravity to
work correctly on corners, just like my previous reference to the low CG of
a Formula One car. Also, a typical F1 car has only 1-2" of suspension
travel. We won't even mention the exotic suspensions and the precise weight
jacks. I suppose a 'vette or a Viper or an Italian job would qualify on the
street, but the ride quality would be something else. The fiberglass body
could break off. :-)

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:42:29 -0700
From: Cliff Simpson <csimpson@ucalgary.ca>
Subject: Re: Dealing with Generous Motors

Joe Vahabzadeh wrote:
> 
> ... ultimately, take the
> car apart bolt by bolt if that's what it takes to figure out the problem.


You are right, no dealership should ever diagnose a problem as unfixable 
unless they are willing to buy it back from you for what it is worth if 
it did not have the problem.

I think one dealership per city/county/state/whatever should be 
designated the prime dealership and any vehicles the other dealerships 
cannot fix would be shipped there and they would have huge resources and 
be able to either fix it or at least give a definite diagnosis.  That is 
similar to how IBM handles problems, we had a large server fail twice 
and they sent a team in who placed special boards in the system and the 
boards were sent to a lab and they diagnosed the problem, excessive zinc 
in the air from old raised flooring that was wearing out.  It costs more 
but I think the increased customer satisfaction, decreased parts and 
time wasted on "random replace repairs" and the increased product 
knowledge they receive is worth it.

<rant>
Having said that, our '99 Intrigue has a loose piston that makes it 
sound like a Cummins and all the dealership could say was "It will take 
20 hours of labour to replace it."  Basically they told me that before 
the car hits 100K miles it will be wreckers material.  But they did 
replace the alternator at a cost of $500 :0.  Two days later the cruise 
control went.  Last year it was something in the ABS system if I recall 
correctly.

First they killed the brand so the car lost thousands in retail value 
and now it's falling apart around us.  I'm still trying to calm down 
enough to write a nice letter explaining the situation and try to get 
them to fix it under some sort of warranty but I have to say, as the 
owner of 4 GM vehicles, that this will probably be the last GM I'll ever 
buy.  I'll keep the Chevelle, the Oldsmobile, and my old Z71 but I'll be 
damned if I buy another GM after the way I've gotten screwed on this one.

So, if you see me in a BMW or Acura TL please don't give me the "Buy 
American" speech :(
</rant>
- -- 

Cliff "Death cures all ills." Simpson & Kermit
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~csimpson/TheOldsZone.html

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 21:44:23 +0000
From: 62oldsfan@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Has anybody seen this?

> The first pic is from elsewhere
> http://i4.ebayimg.com/03/i/01/93/31/a5_1_s.JPG
> 
> This is the second pic.
> http://www.oldsmobility.com/images/cccrear.jpg
>  Is this a canadian option?

No.  Well, maybe.  It was a U.S. option and was probably available in Canada
as well.  I am assuming you are talking about the air cleaner and not the smog
pump.

The air cleaner is a Climatic Combustion Control unit and was optional 
equipement on all V8 Oldsmobiles in 1967.  It was available with 2bbl and 4bbl
carbs.  This was before the pre-heated air cleaners became standard later in
the '60s.

I installed on of these on my old '67 98 and I also had a '67 Toronado that
came with one from the factory.

On a 2bbl, one of those snorkels is a dummy and is permanently closed.  On the
4bbls they are both functional.

Your first picture is missing the metal plate on the lid professing it to be a
Climatic Combustion Control unit.

Paul

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 22:05:56 +0000
From: "Andrew C. Green" <acg_o@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Dealing with Generous Motors

><rant>
>Having said that, our '99 Intrigue has a loose piston that makes it sound 
>like a Cummins and all the dealership could say was "It will take 20 hours 
>of labour to replace it."  Basically they told me that before the car hits 
>100K miles it will be wreckers material.

Is this something more than piston slap? I'm hearing more and more mentions 
of piston slap in late-model GMs (including the Trans Sport we own -- okay, 
"late model" in this case being eight years old :-), although it's usually 
claimed to be not harmful, and does indeed go away after the engine warms 
up. At 111K, our engine seems to be fine and has no oil burning, etc.

>But they did replace the alternator at a cost of $500 :0.

Well, now, that's just silly. We on the Bonneville list are used to swapping 
out alternators every couple years or so, but (1) the cost is in the area of 
$100, not $500, for the part, and (2) installation is all of about 10 
minutes. Are you talking metric dollars, perhaps? Was this a _claimed_ 
expense that was actually covered under warranty?

>Two days later the cruise control went.  Last year it was something
>in the ABS system if I recall correctly.

Disappointing, certainly, but not Olds-specific. GM needs to get their 
corporate quality back up to where it should be, and let their Marketing 
geeks distinguish the different house brands by owner identity or 
personality, rather than whether the Olds stuff lasts longer than the 
Pontiac stuff.

>So, if you see me in a BMW or Acura TL please don't give me the "Buy 
>American" speech :(
></rant>

I sympathize, but trust me when I say that you won't be getting any price 
breaks on complex BMW or Acura parts; that's for sure.

- -- Andy

_________________________________________________________________
All the action. All the drama. Get NCAA hoops coverage at MSN Sports by 
ESPN. http://msn.espn.go.com/index.html?partnersite=espn

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:16:07 -0600
From: OLDSmobility <OLDSmobility@cableone.net>
Subject: Re: Has anybody seen this?

swanny wrote:
> The first pic is from elsewhere
> http://i4.ebayimg.com/03/i/01/93/31/a5_1_s.JPG
> 
> This is the second pic.
> http://www.oldsmobility.com/images/cccrear.jpg
>  Is this a canadian option?
> Pat Swanton
> 
> 
> 
You can do some more reading about the Climatic Combustion Control here:

http://www.oldsmobility.com/carlife_apr67.htm

Keith
OLDSmobility.com

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

End of oldsmobile-digest V1 #4838
*********************************
