
oldsmobile-digest       Monday, August 9 2004       Volume 01 : Number 4982



Re: some things you just can't explain
Re: Ride Height Question - LONG beating of a dead horse between MS & CW
Re: Warped Q-jet
use more road?
Re: Ride Height Question
Re: some things you just can't explain
Re: Buying: thoughts, an Olds vs a non-Olds...
RE: Buying: thoughts, an Olds vs a non-Olds...
Sold the Olds at $3k
Re: Warped Q-jet
Re: Warped Q-jet
Re: some things you just can't explain
Re: A cutlass for Joe Vahabzadeh
Ride Height Question
Warped Q-jet
Sub: Olds to chevy truck implant

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 12:11:15 -0400
From: "David Popadic" <davepopadic@core.com>
Subject: Re: some things you just can't explain

All I can say is ICK!

> http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?
ViewItem&rd=1&item=2485993674&category=6405
>  
> item # 2485993674, since I'm guessing pasting the link didn't work
>  
> Chris
> grp442@yahoo.com
> 
> 		
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

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

Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 12:31:45 -0400
From: "Christopher Witt" <rocketscience442@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Ride Height Question - LONG beating of a dead horse between MS & CW

Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 13:40:28 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: Ride Height Question

>Are you saying that factory rubber bushings rotate on the steel tube that
>passes through the middle?
- -------------------
MS: No, the rubber is bonded to the center steel tube.
========
CW: OK, some point we can agree on...


>I know the friction on the ends would be
>negligible, but I was always under the impression that the middle was
>bonded to the tube.
+++
MS: Right, the friction of the ends is negligible. That's where the bushings
will pivot, just like a poly bushing.
========
CW: Agreed, the ends of the bushings are negligible. I do not understand 
what you mean by "That's where the bushings will pivot"- what is the "that" 
which is where the bushings pivot? Please be specific. And, of course, poly 
bushings are NOTHING WHATSOEVER like the factory units which we are 
restricting our discussion to here.



>Granted, the aftermarket poly bushings are different,
>but all the bushings I've ever used had the bushing fixed to that center
>tube, so that when th arms were bolted down the only movement was from the
>rubber twisting, not from the bushing spinning.
+++
MS: The rubber doesn't want to twist, permanently. If it did, over way too 
many
cycles, the rubber would fatigue and go away, much quicker than it usually
does from age. Initially, there's enough friction from the rubber and the
steel tube to give that effect, but it will go away real quick.
========
CW: That is exactly why the suspension needs to be tightened whilst sitting 
at its normal riding position. To mimimize confusion, please always specify 
what part of the rubber and what part of what steel tube you are talking 
about. There's 2 rubber/tube interfaces of concern here. Rubber does not 
"fatigue" just because you use its flexing properties. Maybe  if you flex it 
too far [yet another reason to tork the suspension at its normal ride 
height]. Pray, tell, if rubber goes bad just by flexing it, how do you 
suppose that those trailer axle rubber suspensions manage to survive? Their 
actions is EXACTLY like that of the CA bushings we are talking about.



MS: I believe the misconception is how the attaching bolt tightens. The
attaching bolt is only torqued about 45 foot pounds, which isn't very much,
and uses a lock nut. 45 pounds will not collapse the sides of the frame
mount to crush into the ends of the steel tube in the center of the bushing
to any great extent.
========
CW: I think you are wrong here. The "frame" is only like 1/8" thick there, 
the clamping force of the bolt will indeed move it inwards to grip the inner 
steel sleeve tightly.



MS: The bushing is going to pivot freely after a short
time. The rubber is designed to *only* absorb road shocks to the attaching
bolt and the frame.
========
CW: So, now you would have us believe that the factory designed this joint 
to allow the inner steel sleeve to pivot on the BOLT, yet they never greased 
the joint, nor did they provide a fitting for future greasing? Am I the only 
one who thinks that argument is whack? If that inner steel sleeve pivots on 
the bolt... there WILL be wear. Unlubricated = LOTS of wear, real fast. 
That's just not right.



MS: The rubber bushing is not part of the spring/shock
system for carrying vehicle load.
========
CW: Well, sure it is. A teensy, small, negligible part compared to the 
forces in the main suspension spring, but, its contribution is damn sure not 
ZERO. Here in MI, control arms do NOT fall free and can be moved with the 
fingertips after disconnecting everything but the rubber bushings. It takes 
a foot and/or a large pry bar to move the CA [at the BJ] end more than a 
couple inches [more than the usual suspension travel].



MS: If the torque on the attaching bolt was significant enough to crush the
frame attaching mount into the ends of the steel tube inside of the rubber
bushing, how would one *ever* remove the control arm? For that matter, how
would the control arm *ever* pivot up an down? It couldn't.
========
CW: Well, as stated above, the "frame" that is pinched by that bolt is not 
foil, but it damn sure ain't 1" thick either. it can and DOES bend under the 
forces of the clamping of the bolt. I bend them apart quite a bit with  a BF 
prybar in order to extract a bushing/bolt permassembly after cutting off the 
bolt's head and tail. They are not all that hard to bend. Not rigid by any 
stretch of the imagination.
   How does the CA pivot?? For god's sake, man, the RUBBER FLEXES. Why is it 
so hard for you to admit that rubber flexes, and the engineers used that to 
their advantage?




MS: The point I'm trying to hammer is that friction between the ends of the
rubber suspension bushing against the steel sides of its frame attaching
mount, whether that friction is from the rubber or the center steel tube,
does not count, will go away in a short period of time, and will not affect
the ride height of the vehicle. It simply can't.
===============
Why tighten the bolt at all, then? A loose pin with a retaining clip would 
have been the clever inexpensive manner of attaching that joint, eh? This is 
where you are wrong. The bolt does collapse the sides of the "frame" and 
does grip the ends of the inner steel sleeve tightly.



>1965 only thing? I recall most of my CSM's specifying torking the bolts-
>*all* the suspension bolts- with the suspension weighted. Yes, I have 1964
>thru 1990 or so versions of the CSM's, and yes, I have read just about all
>of them just about all the way thru. Are you gonna make me go look up this
>point year by year and see what the consensus is?
+++
MS: Yes, I am. The upper control arms mount with a cross shaft through the
control arm. It's a completely different configuration from the lower
control arms. The rebuild of the upper is completely different. It does not
apply.
========
CW: OK, fine. I will ck all the CSM's as soon as I get the downstairs 
bathroom done. The upper CA configuration is not all that different. Just 
smaller pieces. If fact, to support my argument, I have noticed that upper 
CA bushings tend to have "teeth" on the ends of the inner sleeve. If not to 
help grip the surface they reside against, what purpose do you propose those 
teeth serve? Keeps an "extra employee" busy forming the teeth on that part?


CW: > Until
>and unless the forces of use cause the inner steel sleeve to move in
>relation to the frame that grips it at its ends.
+++
MS: Got you. If the inner steel sleeve was locked to the frame, *you would 
never
be able to remove the control arm in the future*. It doesn't work that way.
Also, your statement just inferred the rubber bushings are part of the load
carrying system, represented by the springs and shocks, and the bushings are
not and were never intended to be.
========
CW: You got... nothing. That "frame", as set forth previously, is a long 
ways from unbendable. The BF prybar makes short work of moving each side of 
it out as much as 1/4" in order to facilitate extraction of the bolt/bushing 
permassembly that rust makes. You REALLY gotta get yourself a nice rusty MI 
car to work on, at least once.
   Again, the rubber bushings damn sure ARE part of the load carrying 
system. NEGLIGIBLE contribution in relation to the springs, but NOT ZERO. It 
does take FAR more than fingertip force to move a CA thru its range of 
travel when the only things holding it in place are the 2 properly installed 
inboard bushings. Not just the range of travel it might experience while in 
use, but its range of travel possible before travel is restricted by hitting 
the frame, etc.



CW: > I assert again that the bushing's inner steel sleeve is bonded to the
>rubber, as is the outer steel sheath.
+++
MS: Of course it is.
========
CW: Whoa, -another- point of agreement. Oh, damn, it's the same point.



CW: > Outer steel ring is gripped tightly by
>the A-arm [or rear control arm]. Inner steel bushing is gripped tightly by
>the pinch of the nut and bolt.
+++++++++++++++
MS: NO.
========
CW: "No" to which part? Lemme guess, the latter part. Perhaps you forget 
that most mechanics do not tork to factory specs with a torque wrench. They 
put the bolt in, and hammer it home with the Snap-on [brutally strong]  
impact wrench until it does not turn anymore.



CW: > Neither sleeve is SUPPOSED TO ever move
>w.r.t. its attachement point. ALL motion in the joint is *supposed to*
come  from the torsional flexing of the rubber between its bonds to the 
inner
and > outer steel parts.
+++
MS: NO. That's why lock nuts are applied to the bolts at the factory. By 
your
discription, there would be NO requirement for lock nuts, since there would
never be a chance the bolts could rotate.
========
CW: Not so. The prevailing torque type nuts are a safety measure just in 
case the unit should happen to become loose. There is one chance for the 
bolt to become loose and rotate. That is when the mechanic secures the 
suspension with no load. Then, when the load is applied, and later, when car 
is driven over a severe bump, and the suspension bottoms out, the force 
applied to the rubber bushings is so great that it moves the inner steel 
sleeve. That motion, which is NOT supposed to happen [or else the joint 
would be greaseable, right?!] could -possibly- remove enough metal at the 
sleeve end / frame interface to create looseness. One instance, not likely. 
100's of instances- pretty sure thing.
   THAT is why they are tightened at loaded position- so that no matter how 
much the suspension moves, the force applied to the bushing's inner steel 
sleeve is never so great as to cause it to rotate upon its bolt. In torsion 
the bushing rubber acts just like any spring- a little motion = a little 
force, a lot of motion = a lot of force. By securing the inner steel sleeve 
to the "frame" at its normal at-rest positon, you ensure that it will never 
be moved far enough to incur a force large enough to break it free from its 
grip at the "frame".


CW: > Where, then, would you have us believe the rotational motion, required 
at
>this joint as the suspension moves, *should* occur, sir?
===
MS: Around the bolt. That's why it has a factory lock nut.
========
CW: That's absurd. Why then is there NO PROVISION TO LUBRICATE THAT JOINT? 
Your position shows a serious lack of understanding of the correct use of 
prevailing torque nuts. And of joints designed to allow motion. Why bother 
tightening the nut, then? Get the nut on the bolt and call it good to go.


CW: > what? If your bushings loosen, you got problems. Are you asserting 
that
the rubber is supposed to turn or spin on the inner steel core and/or the
outer
>steel sheath?
+++
MS: No, I've already said it bonded together on previous posts.
========
CW: Another point we can agree on. Oh, damn, it's the same point, again.





CW: > Or, that the inner steel sleeve is supposed to spin/turn on
>the bolt? That's absurd.
+++
MS: Yes, it rotates on the bolt, the movement is very small relative to the
diameter, it's NOT absurd, and that's the reason for the factory lock nuts.
========
CW: OK, Dead Horse.
   I assert that I understand the joint better than you do, and you assert 
the reverse.
   I assert that any joint designed to move in operation [like steering 
joints, ball joints, king pins, etc.] wil be provided a lubrication fitting 
and will be lubricated upon assembly. You assert the Olds Engineers made a 
moving joint w/o lube provision.
     I assert that tightening the bolt, even to the meager factory specs 
[generally disregarded and far exceeded in Real Life] can and does move the 
"frame" metal inward enough to pinch hard against the ends of the bushings' 
inner steel core; You assert that the grip there is not tight enough to 
prevent motion on a regular basis.
   You assert that if that "frame" metal did move upon tightening the bolt, 
it would be impossible to remove the CA later; I assert that moving the 
"frame" metal back apart is not all that hard, and that I have done so with 
the pry bar as necessary on every such job I have performed. [more that a 
few, less than 100's]
   I assert that the only rotational motion in the bushing joint should come 
from flexing of the rubber. You assert that although the rubber may flex 
torsionally, the main source of motion is between the bushing's inner steel 
sleeve and the bolt on which it resides.
   I guess we are not going to come to terms on those points.



MS: To further prove the point, guess what, ***poly bushings rotate on the
bolt***.
========
CW: The action of Poly bushings is beyond the scope of this discussion. I 
cannot speak with authority as to their features, as I have none on hand to 
examine, nor any experience with them. They may very well provide rotational 
motion between poly and inner sleeve, poly and outer sleeve, inner sleeve 
and bolt, whatever. It is irrelevant to this discussion of factory rubber 
suspension bushings, as it is a totally different system.




CW: > Well, no, actually. Usually here in MI it's a Grade-A B*tch to remove 
old
>CA's. You have to pry the arm to get it to move more than an inch or two.
>    THE ONLY MOTION OF THE SUSPENSION IS THAT ATTAINED THRU FLEXING OF THE
>RUBBER. THERE IS NO BUSHING-TO-FRAME OR BUSHING-TO-ARM OR RUBBER-TO-SLEEVE
>OR RUBBER-TO-SHEATH MOTION WHATSOEVER.
>   The bolt is typically rusted solid to the steel inner core of the
bushing.> One part now. Often cannot be slid out or hammered out at all, but 
the
frame> must be cut or pried apart enough to extract the [now] headless and
tailless> bolt from its grip. The remains of the bolt stays in the bushing, 
and the
>entire bushing is replaced. Probably the arm too if the rust is that bad.
+++++++++++++
MS: I guess I've just been real lucky. In Missoura, after removing the 2 
bolts
from the lower control arm, just pull the arm straight out. Just a little
tug is all that is necessary.
==========
CW: You really gotta broaden your experiences. Come to MI, let me show you 
how rust works. MO is a damn long ways south of MI. Worlds apart, might as 
well be AZ.



>If you have more than the teensiest motion of that bolt, one time, as the
>suspension settles into use, you got a problem. Alas, the bolt/ nut can
>loosen even with the teensiest motion of the bolt [if it is more than a
>solitary instance], thus the special prevailing-torque nuts the factory
>used.
+++
MS: Not with a steel pinch locknut.
========
CW: Huh? Not what?


CW:  {INITIAL INQUIRER: REMEMBER TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FELLERS THAT WORKED
>ON YOUR CAR USED THE CORRECT NUTS DURING ASSEMBLY. -NEW- [PLAIN] NUTS FROM
>THE HARDWARE STORE ARE _NOT_ BETTER THAN THE OLD FACTORY CORRECT PARTS.
+++++++++++
MS: One's local industrial bolt supply house can help with any bolt and nut
requirement.
========
CW: If only all mechanics operated that way. In my experience, there are two 
schools of thought w.r.t. replacing missing or damaged fasteners: 1) 
whatever the *hardware store* has on hand, or 2) whatever can be fished out 
of the giant box of leftover bolts from previous jobs. Metric on US threads? 
no problem! Hit her with the impact! [seriously, just saw a metric bolt used 
to hold Rocker Cover on an Olds V8...  crikey.



CW: > are you thinking of the bushings' ENDS??? That would explain a lot.
>Where on the rubber bushings? On the ends?
+++
MS: That's the only thing I've been talking about. The ends.For the last 
time, I've only been talking about the ends.
========
CW: OK, OK already. The only END that matters at all is the ends of the 
bushings' inner steel sleeve. The ends of the rubber part or the outer steel 
sleeve do not come into play. Is this acutally Point 2 that we can agree on 
???



CW: > Thus, the arm is tied rigidly to the frame, with the exception of any
motion> attainable thru the *flexing acton of the rubber portion of the 
bushing*.
>    THAT is why the bushings MUST be tightened while the suspension is
loaded> [mid-travel]- so that the range of motion attainable [w/o 
overpowering the
>friction fit of the inner steel sleeve at the frame and thus causing the
>sleeve to move and/ or the bolt to turn and loosen]- is within the range
of> motion required as the suspension is used.
+++
MS: Then you belong to the school of thought that states the rubber 
suspension
bushings are part of the load bearing components of of the front suspension,
i.e., the springs and shocks.
=======
Well, duh, yeah. To a small extent. You cannot rely on just the bushings to 
hold the car up, but _incorrectly installed_ bushings can damn sure affect 
the ride height, as was my initial assertion, by applying SOME additional 
force to the suspension.


MS: With the bushing acting in the mode you
described, there will be constant flex of the rubber, the rubber will
contribute to the resistance of the shock absorber to road forces,
=========
Indeed, there IS constant flexing of the rubber, as the suspension moves, 
that's what it's there for.
   Shocks are to damp vibration, the springs are to suspend the car. While 
the rubber bushings certainly also do those 2 things, they do so on a scale 
orders of magnitude less than the actual springs and shocks, and thus, for 
this discussion, that effect is totally negligible - for PROPERLY INSTALLED 
bushings.
   The contribution of the rubber bushings to holding the car up is not all 
that large- WHEN PROPERLY INSTALLED. Remember, small deflection from initial 
position = small force. Thus, we want to ensure that the initial position- 
the position at which the bushing is secured by tightening the bolt- is the 
usual position of the weighted suspension.
   It can, however, be large enough to make that initial poster's car ride a 
bit higher in the front... if the mechanic snugged the bolts INCORRECTLY - 
with his brutal impact gun, while the suspension was hanging. In that event, 
just to get to normal ride height, we have used up all of the bushings' 
usual travel. Now they ARE contributing more than a little to the action of 
the suspension spring. Because they were not installed correctly.



MS: and the rubber will fatigue and fail in a short time. Rubber can't do 
the job of a
hydraulic or gas cylinder.
===========
CW: The folks who make rubberized trailer suspensions would disagree with 
you there. As would the users of said trailers.


MS: What's interesting is that by your description,
what are poly bushings supposed to do? Poly bushings do rotate around the
bolt, period. Poly bushings do not flex. Poly bushings are an order of
magnitude firmer than rubber bushings. Poly bushings do exactly the same job
of a rubber bushing, they mitigate suspension flex without having a solid
steel bushing suspension when the suspension is subjected to road shocks.
===========
CW: Yadda yaddda yaddda - enough about poly bushings already; different 
animal, not within the scope of this discussion. We might as well start 
discussing solid aluminum bushings, then.


MS: Maybe you should look at the function of the ***steel*** suspension 
bushings
in the upper control arms of a '64 A-body.
===========
CW:     :-)   Next best thing. Again, a TOTALLY DIFFERENT DESIGN, and beyond 
the scope of this discussion. Say, they would not happen to have, oh, I 
dunno, a GREASE FITTING would they? :-)  'Cause the last 1964 Cutlass I saw  
did. What does that tell you? I think I just won that point.




>Soon after that, the car went like 3" sideways [dog-tracking] when I let
off vs applied the throttle. Look underneath, WHT, a rear [upper?] control 
arm
>bolt FELL OUT and the others are loose. So, you see, sir, it matters....
in some cases, very much so.
+++
MS: Sorry, bolt failure for another reason. Didn't use lock nuts.
===========
CW: It's bee about 20 years, I cannot recall the details. I would have 
thought I used the nuts that came off, but possibly not. Don't see how a 
self-locking nut could spin itself totally off the bolt like that. I was 
young and foolish at the time. Now I am older and foolish :-)



MS: By the way, Energy Suspension supplies both Nyloc nuts and lock washers 
with their
suspension bolt sets. So does Edelbrock. Both are to be used. There's a very
good reason.
===========
CW: Tanget. Please restrict this discussion to Olds factory rubber 
suspension bushings.


>It appears you are simply confusing the ENDS of the rubber bushings with
the
>true gripping surface- their ID and OD, where they meet the inner steel
>sleeve and outer steel sheath, respectively.
+++
MS: I didn't confuse anything. I discussed *****ONLY***** the ends of the
bushings. Re-read what I wrote.

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com
=======
CW: OK, how about this part here: "Poly bushings do rotate around the bolt, 
period. " I presume that you refer to rotational motion occurring at the 
interface of the OD of the inner steel sleeve and ID of the poly bushing. 
Which does not include any "ends" of any of the parts.

MS: "No, the rubber is bonded to the center steel tube."
...
"Initially, there's enough friction from the rubber and the
steel tube to give that effect, but it will go away real quick."
...
=======
CW: Is this more instances of you talking about a surface other than the 
ends of the pieces of the bushing assembly?  I guess that might have led me 
to believe that some surface other than the components' ends was being 
spoken of.
- ----------------------
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

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

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

Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 10:41:10 -0600
From: Cliff Simpson <csimpson@ucalgary.ca>
Subject: Re: Warped Q-jet

Greg Pruett wrote:
> I have a 70 series Q-jet with some major warpage!  Didn't know one could 
> warp like this.  ...

Several years ago someone posted on this list that they had a leaking 
Q-Jet and they had tried everything including torqueing the bolts to 130 
ft-lbs just like the manual says.

Several listers noted that the correct value is 130 inch-lbs.

Perhaps you have his old carb :0

Games people with original looking musclecars play, number 101: put a 
fuzzy cover on the steering wheel and beads on the seats and park your 
car in front of an old folks home and see how many "Do you want to sell 
your car?" notes you get.
- --

Cliff "Give some people 12 inches and they will take a foot." Simpson
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~csimpson/TheOldsZone.html

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

Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 12:45:40 -0400
From: "Christopher Witt" <rocketscience442@hotmail.com>
Subject: use more road?

"use more road than is available."
Ron"
============
That's pretty funny
and oh how true
I hate when you need a little more road, but it's not there.
- ----------------------
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

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 09:56:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: chris smetana <grp442@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Ride Height Question

- --0-1250503633-1092070575=:68463
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

You guys and your air chisels.  I have a tool that looks 
like a really strong C clamp.  With a few adapters, it 
just pushes those bushings out and in.  I make up a 
curved piece of 1/8" metal to go around the bushing, 
to keep the A arm from collapsing.   Bruce Roe
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, looks just like the big c-clamp one uses to press in and out lower ball joints.  (or that you can rent at AutoZone)  Only it has a slot in it to fit over the upper control arm shaft.  My brother (who's an asc certified mechanic) pointed this out to me and showed me the tool catalog with it in there.  Sorry, I don't recall the company or price at the moment.
 
Oh when Greg brought up this thread originally, the FIRST thing that popped into my head was mentioning the torquing of control arm bolts without the cars weight on it's own tires since it started such a spirited conversation many months ago.  But I refrained.
 
Chris
grp442@yahoo.com
 

		
- ---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
- --0-1250503633-1092070575=:68463
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<DIV>You guys and your air chisels.&nbsp; I have a tool that looks <BR>like a really strong C clamp.&nbsp; With a few adapters, it <BR>just pushes those bushings out and in.&nbsp; I make up a <BR>curved piece of 1/8" metal to go around the bushing, <BR>to keep the A arm from collapsing.&nbsp;&nbsp; Bruce Roe<BR>----------------------------------------------------------------------</DIV>
<DIV>Yep, looks just like the big c-clamp one uses to press in and out lower ball joints.&nbsp; (or that you can rent at AutoZone)&nbsp; Only it has a slot in it to fit over the upper control arm shaft.&nbsp; My brother (who's an&nbsp;asc certified mechanic) pointed this out to me and showed me the tool catalog with it in there.&nbsp; Sorry, I don't recall the company or price at the moment.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Oh when Greg brought up this thread originally, the FIRST thing that popped into my head was mentioning the torquing of control arm bolts without the cars weight on it's own tires since it started such a spirited conversation many months ago.&nbsp; But I refrained.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Chris</DIV>
<DIV><A href="mailto:grp442@yahoo.com">grp442@yahoo.com</A></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><p>
		<hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/new/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail">Check it out!</a>
- --0-1250503633-1092070575=:68463--

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 13:12:21 EDT
From: JonKrisInc@aol.com
Subject: Re: some things you just can't explain

- -------------------------------1092071541
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Did Foose get his hands on another Olds?
 
 
Bruce
75  Delta 88 Conv. (duals, of course)
72 Cutlass Conv.
56 190 SL Conv.
92  Eldo

- -------------------------------1092071541
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=3Drole_body style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY:=20=
Arial"=20
bottomMargin=3D7 leftMargin=3D7 topMargin=3D7 rightMargin=3D7><FONT id=3Drol=
e_document=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>
<DIV>Did Foose get his hands on another Olds?</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=3D0 face=3DArial size=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D"10"=
>Bruce<BR>75=20
Delta 88 Conv. (duals, of course)<BR>72 Cutlass Conv.<BR>56 190 SL Conv.<BR>=
92=20
Eldo</FONT></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>

- -------------------------------1092071541--

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 17:34:28 GMT
From: "njot33@juno.com" <njot33@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Buying: thoughts, an Olds vs a non-Olds...

For clarification, it was the THM-440 (the 4 speed automatic) that was problematic in the 88/98/Ciera in the late 80s.  The 3.8 always had that option.  The 2.8/3.0 may or may not have had that option.

The 3 speed frotn wheel drive automatic (THM-125) was relatively trouble free.

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 10:54:40 -0700
From: "Schopen, Kenneth" <kenneth.schopen@medtronic.com>
Subject: RE: Buying: thoughts, an Olds vs a non-Olds...

I owned an '88 Cougar for many, many years and was completely happy with it. It was a well built vehicle, and as you stated, it had a wonderfully quiet, smooth ride, even at elevated highway speeds. If I could find another low mileage one in good condition I would not hesitate to buy it. Please don't offer me as a sacrifice to the Olds gods for that statement.

Kenneth
1971 Cutlass Supreme convertible
Phoenix, AZ

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 14:43:06 -0400
From: "John Nasta" <email@johnnasta.com>
Subject: Sold the Olds at $3k

Well, I just received payment for my 1968 98 convertible. The end of an era.
It's good in the long run because I don't have a place to keep it and
leaving it outdoors for a second winter certainly wouldn't do it any good.
Hopefully some day I'll have a house with a garage again and will be able to
play with old cars again. I just thought I would tell everybody because a
few people on the list expressed some interest and a couple of people even
offered to let me store it at their house.

As a side note, I will have lots of parts to sell, and I would love it if
somebody would transfer all the info on my web site to another server since
I don't maintain the site anymore anyway.

Thanks everybody.

John Nasta

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 13:27:34 -0700
From: "Schopen, Kenneth" <kenneth.schopen@medtronic.com>
Subject: Re: Warped Q-jet

> Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 04:49:34 -0500
> From: Karl Erik Aune <425power@ameritech.net>
> Subject: Re: Warped Q-jet

> There exist float-bowl-to-air-horn gaskets that are double 
> (or treble, I didn't have a mic handy) the thickness of the 
> standard ones.
> They do, of course cost more than normal ones.
> 
> K

I'd like to know the source for these gaskets. The reman QJet I got from Holley has one on it, but I couldn't get them to tell me who or where the gasket came from. I would like to play around with the power piston spring, but I'm afraid to take the air horn off for fear that it will leak afterwards. Now if I could get some new double-thick gaskets I would feel confident pulling the air horn.

Kenneth
1971 Cutlass Supreme convertible
Phoenix, AZ
 

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 17:01:56 -0400
From: "Tour Op & Travel Agency Trade 2000" <travelchile@manquehue.net>
Subject: Re: Warped Q-jet

Kenneth,
Are you satisfied with your carb? The one from Holley...
rgds
Matt

> > Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 04:49:34 -0500
> > From: Karl Erik Aune <425power@ameritech.net>
> > Subject: Re: Warped Q-jet
>
> > There exist float-bowl-to-air-horn gaskets that are double
> > (or treble, I didn't have a mic handy) the thickness of the
> > standard ones.
> > They do, of course cost more than normal ones.
> >
> > K
>
> I'd like to know the source for these gaskets. The reman QJet I got from
Holley has one on it, but I couldn't get them to tell me who or where the
gasket came from. I would like to play around with the power piston spring,
but I'm afraid to take the air horn off for fear that it will leak
afterwards. Now if I could get some new double-thick gaskets I would feel
confident pulling the air horn.
>
> Kenneth
> 1971 Cutlass Supreme convertible
> Phoenix, AZ
>

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

Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 17:59:48 -0400
From: Joe Vahabzadeh <king_v@mindless.com>
Subject: Re: some things you just can't explain

At 08:54 AM 08/09/2004 -0700, Chris wrote:
> item # 2485993674

Um . . it's . . . uh . . . *interesting*, I guess.


	- Joe "but so is Picasso" Vahabzadeh

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

Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 18:06:41 -0400
From: Joe Vahabzadeh <king_v@mindless.com>
Subject: Re: A cutlass for Joe Vahabzadeh

At 09:52 PM 08/08/2004 -0700, Joe Varley wrote:
>Joe, there is a decent looking '87 Cutlass Supreme Brougham for sale on 
>ebay in New Jersey.  70,000 miles, 307 V8, loaded, no reserve.  It is only 
>at $350.00 now, has less than 4 days to go.  I believe you are also in NJ, 
>and may want to check it out. Item #  2486606435

Man, how do you guys do this?!  I can look up and down, day and night, and
not find something, and here you are within a day or two with a link to
something in my neck of the woods.

To badly abuse a quote from Wayne's World (bowing before you) . . "I'm not
worthy!!  I'm not worthy!!"

Gonna have a look-see at this one.

As things are, the T-bird is still tempting, and the 87 Ciera GT was a
beautiful car, but much like an 88 Ciera International I recently test
drove, didn't downshift from 3 to 2 so much as slam into the next lower
gear.  Ugh.  Otherwise a great car, but if it weren't for the tranny issue,
and the confirmations that the pre-90 ones are unreliable, I'd probably
have gone for the little A-body.  Or at least the pre-89 trannies, anyway,
as both mine and my dad's 89 Royales are much smoother and each have over
120K on the original transmissions.

But, on the plus side, even if I get the T-bird, it leaves enough room in
the budget to get this particular Cutlass......  Gotta take a drive up to
Elmora in the next day or so...


	- Joe Vahabzadeh

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 18:01:05 -0500
From: bcroe@juno.com
Subject: Ride Height Question

9 Aug 2004  "Frederick Nissen" <fsnissen@worldnet.att.net> writes:

> > You guys and your air chisels.  I have a tool that looks
> > like a really strong C clamp.  
> -----------------

> I use the same thing, but if I was trying to make a living as a line
> mechanic it would be air chisel all the way.

> Fred

Did I ever say, I won't let other people work on my car?  

That  PRESS SERVICE KIT   is at 

   harborfreight.com      item 38355-ojka  $40

Bruce Roe

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 17:09:16 -0500
From: bcroe@juno.com
Subject: Warped Q-jet

I keep reading about warped Q-jets, but I've never 
had one at my house.  Maybe it's related to not 
allowing anyone else to work on my cars.

Bruce Roe


> > I have a 70 series Q-jet with some major warpage!  Didn't 
> > know one could warp like this. 

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 19:27:34 EDT
From: Kt8321@aol.com
Subject: Sub: Olds to chevy truck implant

- --part1_7e.55710712.2e496266_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Nice sensible fellow I met would like to put my 350 Olds engine into his 66 
Chevy 1/2 ton with a TH350 behind it. At present he has a very ill 350 Chevy 
engine with 3 speed on the column. As far as engine mounting, can he do this 
with the Chevy truck 350 diesel mounts? Also, since the old truck has the 2 piece 
drive shaft with a center carrier bearing, would he be better off to have a 
one piece custom shaft made? He will need a new trans yoke anyway. All input 
and advice will be appreciated, and hopefully, another Olds powered truck will 
be on the road. Oh, I ordered a fuel tank sending unit today from USA Parts 
Supply. Only place I've found with a unit for the 69. Catalog price was $79.81. 
Parts dude said there had been a slight price increase. Increased to $150!!!  
Dontcha just love these old cars?
Ken Thomas
69 Delta conv. being resurrected, again
71 Delta Custom  never fails me

- --part1_7e.55710712.2e496266_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">Nice sensible fellow I met would li=
ke to put my 350 Olds engine into his 66 Chevy 1/2 ton with a TH350 behind i=
t. At present he has a very ill 350 Chevy engine with 3 speed on the column.=
 As far as engine mounting, can he do this with the Chevy truck 350 diesel m=
ounts? Also, since the old truck has the 2 piece drive shaft with a center c=
arrier bearing, would he be better off to have a one piece custom shaft made=
? He will need a new trans yoke anyway. All input and advice will be appreci=
ated, and hopefully, another Olds powered truck will be on the road. Oh, I o=
rdered a fuel tank sending unit today from USA Parts Supply. Only place I've=
 found with a unit for the 69. Catalog price was $79.81. Parts dude said the=
re had been a slight price increase. Increased to $150!!!&nbsp; Dontcha just=
 love these old cars?<BR>
Ken Thomas<BR>
69 Delta conv. being resurrected, again<BR>
71 Delta Custom&nbsp; never fails me</FONT></HTML>

- --part1_7e.55710712.2e496266_boundary--

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

End of oldsmobile-digest V1 #4982
*********************************
