
oldsmobile-digest      Tuesday, August 10 2004      Volume 01 : Number 4983



Re: Ride Height Question - LONG beating of a dead horse between MS & CW
Ride Height Question
RE: Warped Q-jet
Re: Warped Q-jet
Re: Sold the Olds at $3k
Re: Some Batman car sightings...
Starters and weather
Re: DynoMax Ultra Flow Mufflers
Re: Warped Q-jet
Re: Some Batman car sightings...
RE: Some Batman car sightings...
Control Arm Bushing Tool and Wanted: Used Gears
Re: DynoMax Ultra Flow Mufflers
RE: Sold the Olds at $3k
Re: Warped Q-jet
Re: Sold the Olds at $3k

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 19:38:10 -0400
From: "ron fama" <77w30442@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Ride Height Question - LONG beating of a dead horse between MS & CW

use poly and avoid the conflict.
may peace be with us on this topic
ron.

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christopher Witt" <rocketscience442@hotmail.com>
To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 12:31 PM
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, 9 Aug 2004 18:18:17 -0500
From: bcroe@juno.com
Subject: Ride Height Question

On low mileage, but rather old cars, I've used it to 
replace all the rubber bushings, without disconnecting 
much else.   I have a picture somewhere.  Bruce

8 Aug 2004  "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com> writes:
> > You guys and your air chisels.  I have a tool that looks
> > like a really strong C clamp.  

> >  Bruce Roe
> 
> 
> Bruce,
> 
> If you can use that tool on an upper control arm without 
> removing the arm from the car, great! I didn't know 
> about it. It sounds like it could be
> better than the old way I learned 40 years ago.
> 
> Milton Schick

> imp@theriver.com

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 17:12:30 -0700
From: "Schopen, Kenneth" <kenneth.schopen@medtronic.com>
Subject: RE: Warped Q-jet

> 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 do all my own automotive work, too. The problem is someone 
else owned the car before I did (I was in grade school when 
it was built).

Kenneth
1971 Cutlass Supreme convertible
Phoenix, AZ

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 17:23:24 -0700
From: "Schopen, Kenneth" <kenneth.schopen@medtronic.com>
Subject: Re: Warped Q-jet

> 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

Yes, I am. I went through three carbs from Tomco (carried by the local NAPA store) and every one of them had a severe fuel bowl leak - the third one had a very visible crack through the bottom of the bowl. I should say that the fella at NAPA warned me that the quality of the Tomco carbs was not very good - I just didn't listen. 

After the third carb, I took his advice and went to a shop that carried Holley remanufactured carbs. To my surprise, the carb I got had the correct stamping number for my car (7041250) and the correct primary jets and rods, secondary rods, and hanger. It's been over three years now and I haven't had any problems with the carb. I should say that others have told me I got lucky - they said their Holley reman carbs had issues similar to what I saw with the Tomco carbs. 

Kenneth
1971 Cutlass Supreme convertible
Phoenix, AZ

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

Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 17:25:37 -0700
From: Mark Mullins <mark@marineaviation.org>
Subject: Re: Sold the Olds at $3k

I would've bought it if I had the cash... I would've let you store it here 
for free (if you didn't mind the drive to AZ).  On the other hand, I 
limited my useless contributions to this list from 15 to JUST this 
one.  :)  Anyway, I'm glad it came to an agreeable conclusion.

M

At 02:43 PM 8/9/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>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

Mark Mullins
Tucson, Az

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 20:51:10 -0400
From: "Daniel R. Gerow" <dgerow@stonehill.edu>
Subject: Re: Some Batman car sightings...

If anyone cares to check it out:

http://megatron.stonehill.edu/video/batmanbegins_batmobil.mov

Different but very Frank Miller-esque cool.

 ~ Dan

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

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew C. Green" <acg_o@hotmail.com>
To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 3:47 PM
Subject: OT: Some Batman car sightings...


> This is unfortunately non-Olds but I thought it of interest to this list
> anyway: They're busy filming chase scenes for the next Batman movie in and
> around the elevated train tracks here in downtown Chicago. There's been
some
> footage on the news of the new Batmobile, which I haven't seen myself yet,
> but the rest of the crew has set up a staging area in the vacant lot next
to
> our high-rise office building. (The Batmobile may have been under a rather
> large white tent that they'd set up, but that's gone now.) In among the
> usual film-crew trucks and trailers are some movie vehicles, including
> several Gotham Police Department squad cars.

<snip>

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

Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 17:57:58 -0700
From: Mark Mullins <mark@marineaviation.org>
Subject: Starters and weather

Blah blah.... finally toasted the starter yesterday.  3 + years next to the 
header with no heat shield... It was expected.  Sad part is when I came 
home from work to install it, it's raining like a cow pissing on a flat 
rock!!!  (and no garage).  I thought Arizona was a sunny paradise?

M

Mark Mullins
Tucson, Az

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

Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 18:01:42 -0700
From: Mark Mullins <mark@marineaviation.org>
Subject: Re: DynoMax Ultra Flow Mufflers

Paul,
I believe this is the same muffler as the old Walker Turbo.  If so, they're 
reasonably quiet at idle, but make a helluva noise when you open it up.  I 
ran a pair of the old Walkers on a C-brand I used to own.  Loved the 
performance and the sound.

M

At 05:08 AM 8/9/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>Is anyone using these mufflers?
>
>How loud are they?
>
>TIA
>
>Paul Tumolo
>1970 442 now running Super Turbos
>OCA # 31967

Mark Mullins
Tucson, Az

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

Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 21:57:37 -0400
From: Greg Pruett <gregp@connect-one.com>
Subject: Re: Warped Q-jet

- --=======55DA23FC=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-19A64953; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

At 04:49 AM 8/9/2004 -0500, you wrote:

>This quadrajet should also be perfectly useable, if a little weird looking 
>with the aircleaner off. The Q-jet float, needle and seat all reside 
>entirely within the float bowl and should be unaffected by warping at the 
>top of the float bowl and the air horn.

The warp is from front to back along the entire air horn.  Like somebody 
had a hand on the front, and one on the back then pushed with their thumbs 
in the middle.

It's still working pretty good today.  I managed to get it to quit seeping 
gas.

>A binding air valve can be cured variously, depending on where the trouble 
>spot is.

It was seeping gas before because I couldn't torque the air horn down tight 
enough without binding the air valves.  Yesterday I found the secondary air 
baffle wasn't in all the way so I tapped that into place.  Maybe that 
helped.  I also figured out I could tighten all but the very back screws 
and the air valves would stay free.  Before I just torqued them all evenly 
'till they bound, then backed off slightly.  Now all are tight exept the 
rear two, and they're as tight as I could get them before the air valve 
bound.  I just hope the throttle plate isn't leaking now. :P   So far it 
doesn't seem to be affecting it any.

>Proper sealing of warped carbs is not that big a deal either.
>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.


Sounds good to me.  I was thinking of maybe using two gaskets.  Either that 
or get another carb. :)

Greg Pruett
72 Vista Cruiser
67 Cutlass Supreme
80 Cutlass Calais
87 Cutlass Supreme 4-door
Roanoke, VA

- --=======55DA23FC=======--

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 21:59:23 -0400
From: "ron fama" <77w30442@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Some Batman car sightings...

nothing like the bat mobile i remember
ron
- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel R. Gerow" <dgerow@stonehill.edu>
To: "Olds List" <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: Some Batman car sightings...


> If anyone cares to check it out:
> 
> http://megatron.stonehill.edu/video/batmanbegins_batmobil.mov
> 
> Different but very Frank Miller-esque cool.
> 
>  ~ Dan
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Daniel R. Gerow
> '70 W-31 Post 4spd
> dgerow@stonehill.edu
> http://www.oldsrocket.com
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Andrew C. Green" <acg_o@hotmail.com>
> To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 3:47 PM
> Subject: OT: Some Batman car sightings...
> 
> 
> > This is unfortunately non-Olds but I thought it of interest to this list
> > anyway: They're busy filming chase scenes for the next Batman movie in and
> > around the elevated train tracks here in downtown Chicago. There's been
> some
> > footage on the news of the new Batmobile, which I haven't seen myself yet,
> > but the rest of the crew has set up a staging area in the vacant lot next
> to
> > our high-rise office building. (The Batmobile may have been under a rather
> > large white tent that they'd set up, but that's gone now.) In among the
> > usual film-crew trucks and trailers are some movie vehicles, including
> > several Gotham Police Department squad cars.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 22:05:50 -0400
From: "John Nasta" <email@johnnasta.com>
Subject: RE: Some Batman car sightings...

Doesn't even have the bat symbol on the doors. At least it can drive on its
own power. The last few had no engine and had to be towed.


- -----Original Message-----


nothing like the bat mobile i remember
ron

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

Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 01:59:04 +0000
From: Steve Harrison <k0xp@dandy.net>
Subject: Control Arm Bushing Tool and Wanted: Used Gears

At 06:01 PM 8/9/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>Did I ever say, I won't let other people work on my car?  

No, don't recall hearing that  ;o)

>That  PRESS SERVICE KIT   is at 
>
>   harborfreight.com      item 38355-ojka  $40

And is that one any good, anyone have one??

BTW.... anyone have a used set of 8.5" 3.73 gears? I don't think this BBA
is gwan last moren another 2 years or so, so am willing to consider taking
a chance on used gears...

Thanks,
SteveH

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

Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 19:33:33 -0700
From: geo.aigel@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Re: DynoMax Ultra Flow Mufflers

>Is anyone using these mufflers?

They are the same than the older Dynomax Race Magnums. They are straight 
through, no bends, nothing. So, performance wise, they are the way to go.

I have the Race Magnums on my 71 442, WZ, 2.5" tubes with X pipe and full 
exhaust. They are loud but bearable. Very nice rumbling idle, decent noise 
level at cruise, no resonance spot and really nasty when you open it up.

Hope this helps. They are definitely louder than the Super Turbos. I think 
you'll like them on your 442.

George

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

Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 23:51:41 -0400
From: Jack Kopf <jkopf@optonline.net>
Subject: RE: Sold the Olds at $3k

Congratulations, it's been a long road. When you have a list of stuff and
prices before doing the evil site please do a posting on the list.
Jack

- -----Original Message-----
From: oldsmobile-owner@chebucto.ns.ca
[mailto:oldsmobile-owner@chebucto.ns.ca]On Behalf Of John Nasta
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 2:43 PM
To: Olds Mailing List
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 21:33:18 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: Warped Q-jet

> Yes, I am. I went through three carbs from Tomco (carried by the local
NAPA store) and every one of them had a severe fuel bowl leak - the third
one had a very visible crack through the bottom of the bowl. I should say
that the fella at NAPA warned me that the quality of the Tomco carbs was not
very good - I just didn't listen.


What a difference 30 years makes!

Remember the little irregular shaped gasket well plug that goes between the
base and the bowl on a Q-jet to seal off potential leaks from the plugs in
the bottom of the fuel bowl? Well, that thick gasket was developed by TOMCO
in '69. It was a revolutionary fix for that Q-jet problem. Literally, a
billion of those were sold. Also, TOMCO rebuilt carbs were the
top-of-the-line back then. Now...I guess times change.

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 21:35:55 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: Sold the Olds at $3k

> On the other hand, I
> limited my useless contributions to this list from 15 to JUST this
> one.  :)


Whoa there partner! You've never made a useless contribution to this List in
your life!

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com

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

End of oldsmobile-digest V1 #4983
*********************************
