To:	oldsmobile-digest @ chebucto.ns.ca @ INTERNET
cc:	 
Subject:	oldsmobile-digest V1 #531


oldsmobile-digest         Sunday, 23 February 1997      Volume 01 : Number 531

Re: Pronouncing 442
Secret Service leasing
Re: Olds vs Chevy
Re: Secret Service leasing
Re: more engine questions
Re: more engine questions
For Ohio Readers Only
Re: Rear main seal 455
Re: 307 problem history
Re: ARP main studs
Re: Olds vs Chevy
Re: Remaking Olds engines
Re: Olds vs Chevy
Re: Pronouncing 442
Re: Olds vs Chevy
Re: more engine questions
V8 Mono-block Castings
Re: more engine questions
Bodywork
Re: more engine questions
Re: Olds vs. Chevy
Re: please stop Pronouncing 442
more 307
Re: Bodywork
Re: more 307
Re: Pronouncing 442
Re: Buick in a ch*vy?  (was Re: Buick 350, 400)
Re: Buick in a ch*vy?  (was Re: Buick 350, 400)
Re: Remaking Olds engines
Re: Olds vs Chevy
Re: Pronouncing 442
Re: Parts for sale
Re: ARP main studs
Re: Whats in a name?? Dodge VS Olds
Re: Fuel Injection
Re: Rocket 88 Song
Re: Parts for sale
Re: Pron. 442 and dashes
"Y" and "9" 307's
Re: Conv. Top Adjustment
Re: 442
Re: Re[2]: Pronouncing 442
Re: more engine questions
Re: Pronouncing 442
Re: more engine questions
Re: Olds Starfire curiosities
Re: ARP main studs
Re: more engine questions
Re: 1976 oldsmobile delta 88 royale
Re: more engine questions
Re: "Y" and "9" 307's
Re: Olds vs Chevy
Re: more engine questions
Re: Olds vs. Chevy
Re: more 307
Re: Remaking Olds engines

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

From: buehner@cis.nmclites.edu (buehner)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 18:26:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Pronouncing 442

>I think if this subject is discussed ten or fifteen more days then all the
>hungry people of the Earth will be fed, the homeless will have shelter, and
all
>the warring nations will declare peace. That's just how important this
subject >is. > >Art Fuller >'70 442 Convt. >'70 four forty-two coupe, or
whatever anybody wants to call it.

Umm, is that coupe a "coop" or a "coop-ay" or is the "p" supposed to be
silent? :)




      Charley Buehner       | "buehner@cis.nmclites.edu"
      500 4th Ave.          | "charley@rocketship.com"
      Box 1255              | Montana State University-Northern
      Havre, Montana 59501  | http://cis.nmclites.edu/~buehner
      "Rockit 1"            | '81 Olds Cutlass 425
      "BT UR 4D"            | '70 Buick GS 455
             (Real Cars Don't Wear Bowties)

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

From: James William Townsend <jwt7@dana.ucc.nau.edu>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 19:06:32 -0400
Subject: Secret Service leasing

I know this is a horrible thing to say to Olds people but the vehicle
described by the Secret Service sounds like a Chevy Z28.

                 Jim

                 '90 Calais W40

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

From: Jason Labay <z28cfi@gwis.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 19:26:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Olds vs Chevy

At 06:01 PM 2/22/97 -0400, J2RKT@aol.com wrote:
> er uh umm what's the F list?

Sorry I didn't make that more clear. The F-body mailing list is similar to
this list, except it is for F-body GM products (Camaro and Firebird).

Olds content: I finally saw that 455 Rocket video by Kathy Mattea last
night. What a terrible song, IMO. But yet country is my least favorite kind
of music so I doubt anything could make me like it.....
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Jason Labay (z28cfi@gwis.com)  Akron, Ohio  f-list since 5/95
93 Camaro Z/28......Patriot Red, TFX cat-back, blackouts, Firehawk SVX tires
80 Olds 4-4-2  W-30..http://www.442.com/labay.html

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

From: Jason Labay <z28cfi@gwis.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 19:28:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Secret Service leasing

At 07:06 PM 2/22/97 -0400, James William Townsend wrote:
>I know this is a horrible thing to say to Olds people but the vehicle
>described by the Secret Service sounds like a Chevy Z28.

Thats allright, this Olds person likes to hear that:)
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Jason Labay (z28cfi@gwis.com)  Akron, Ohio  f-list since 5/95
93 Camaro Z/28......Patriot Red, TFX cat-back, blackouts, Firehawk SVX tires
80 Olds 4-4-2  W-30..http://www.442.com/labay.html

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

From: James William Townsend <jwt7@dana.ucc.nau.edu>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 19:33:46 -0400
Subject: Re: more engine questions

Just out of curiosity, why is the Olds 350 better than the Chevy 350, or
vice versa?

               Jim

               1990 Calais W-40
               (previously, 1972 Monte Carlo)

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

From: J2RKT@aol.com
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 20:05:43 -0400
Subject: Re: more engine questions

  Well you can look at it from this stand point -- shorter stroke, bigger
bore, longer connecting rods.  The Olds engines also tended to be made from
higher quality materials -- ie. high nickle content iron.
  Just from an opinion point of view the Olds engines always seemed to run
smoother get better bottom end torque for driveability and were just a tad
bit quieter running from a mechanical noise point of view than the small
block chevy.
  Other than that an engine is an engine is an engine -- they all run pretty
much the same in stock form.

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

From: PHartlieb@aol.com
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 20:12:20 -0400
Subject: For Ohio Readers Only

Hey Ohio Residents

We need your help.  The Blue/Gray Chapter of O.C.A. is in the process of
planning our caravan to the Centennial in Lansing in August.  AAA has told us
that a good halfway stopping point would be Boardman, South of Youngstown.
 Is there anyone out there that is familiar with this area and would be able
to give us their opinion on hotel accomodations.  The AAA TourBook lists
about a half dozen hotels for Boardman.  Not knowing the area, we are a
little hesitant to make arrangements for rooms.  We have found that just
because a hotel is approved by AAA doesn't mean it's all it's cracked up to
be.  Of course, none of these plans have been finalized.  We will only be
doing that at our March 16th meeting.  At that time it may be decided that a
stopping point further West would be what everybody wants.

If someone on the list can give us a hand, please email me.

Thanks,

Paul
PHartlieb@aol.com

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

From: "C.R.F." <wizkid@inlink.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 20:36:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Rear main seal 455

At 02:12 PM 2/22/97 -0400, you wrote:
>I've got a 2 piece rear main seal.. Was wondering if anyone has any tips
>on installation.  The motor is out of the car.  The seal has 2 rubber
>pieces and 2 cloth pieces.  I assume the rubber pieces go half in the
>cap and half in the engine block on either side of the crank and the
>cloth pieces are trimmed to fit between the two rubber pieces.  My 1969
>Motors Manual doesnt say squat about the seal and there were no
>directions with it.  Can anyone help?
>
>rottin@coil.com
>
>
>
STOP were you are.  Good to your friendly F*rd dealer, and acquire a one
piece main seal for one of their 460 engines.  One time that F*rd really did
have a better idea.  Slate the 2 piece seal for discard.

The Wiz

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

From: "C.R.F." <wizkid@inlink.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:00:38 -0400
Subject: Re: 307 problem history

At 01:43 PM 2/22/97 -0400, you wrote:
>I'd be happy to give the whole history.  I bought this car 2 1/2 years ago
with
>26000 miles.  It was owned by an old couple in Milwaukee who also had a
cottage
>in Mercer, Wi.  It had most of its miles going to Mercer and back, a good
>distance.  I have the service records.
>At about 36000 miles it started using oil, about a quart every 1000 miles.  I
 >have replaced the valve cover gaskets, the intake manifold gaskets, and the
oil >pan gaskets.  All showed signs of MINOR leakage, never even a spot of
oil on the >floor.  Believe it or not, it does NOT smoke; the only signs of
distress are >some soot on the bumper.  I have also gone through the entire
exhaust system >looking for some signs of blockage.  I have replaced the PCV
valve. >I tried running a compression test but have reasons to doubt my
equipment.  If >it was right, I'm looking at about 80 psi.  I recently
changed the thermostat >and looked for oil in the coolant. >It doesn't leak
and it doesn't smoke but its going somewhere. >Pat > > This post is no
different than the one from earlier in the week.  You've got to discern more
clues.  At 80 psi compression (if accurate) you've got bad rings or valves,
most likely rings.

Keep Looking,

The Wiz

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

From: "C.R.F." <wizkid@inlink.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 20:57:58 -0400
Subject: Re: ARP main studs

At 02:21 PM 2/22/97 -0400, you wrote:
>I was torquing the mains down on my engine block to check clearance
>with plasitgage. On the second main the brand new 1/2 inch ARP stud
>snapped in half.  After alot of cursing and scratching my head I finally
>decided to have my torque wrench checked.  Turns out when set at 120ft
>lbs. It was torquing 180ft. lbs.. My question is this.. Yall think the
>first set of studs I torqued to 180ft. lbs. can be reused?  They didnt
>break. These studs are abit pricey.  Hopefully I will only have to buy
>the one that broke.  Anyone have any experience with this?
>
>rottin@coil.com
>
>
>
1. If they are still new, as in, this is the first time they were used
(especially if very recently purchased), return them from whence they came.
Including the broken one.  Tell them you want a new set, as you are no
longer confident that the set they shipped to you was from a satisfactory
lot.  The trouble is more likely a bad production batch, than destruction
from 'over torqueing.'

1a. Do not reuse them in any case.  It really is more likely a bad batch of
parts, than a case of Charles Atlas at the torque wrench.  If they have
faulty heat treatment, or material specifications, the likelyhood is that
they all do.

2. I believe the manufacturer would like to have them returned.  I know that
if I were manufacturing high Grade fasteners, and had one fail in the field,
I would want it back, and all that were sold with it. I would want to know
why it failed!  If the retailer balks, ask for the manufacturers name and
phone number, and then go direct.  If the manufacturer balks then come back
here and scream bloody murder.

3. If it were me, and I was 'stuck' with them, I would call up one of the
local Universities, that has an engineering department, and run the
remaining studs thru their tensil strength machine; so see what the quality
of the part really is.  It should take a minimum of 27,000 pounds raw pull
to cause a 0.50" Gr. 8 fastener to fail.  One time we pulled some 0.50"
Allen brand, Allen head cap screws apart, and they stayed together past
30,000 pounds.  I no longer remember when they failed, but it was in the
30,000 to 40,000 pounds range.  Also if I were pulling them apart, I would
want to pull both ends of the one that failed apart too.

3a. I don't believe that 180 '/#s of torque comes anywhere near equating to
this value.

I would not tell them anything else, but I would be a 'just a bit' irate.

The Wiz

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

From: "C.R.F." <wizkid@inlink.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:03:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Olds vs Chevy

At 04:53 PM 2/22/97 -0400, you wrote:
>  Hey Guys & Gals
>                              I don't know if anybody paid any attention to
>the article in Hot Rod magazine about the new Chevy 350 2nd generation LT1.
> I was looking at the pictures in the article an noted many similarities
>between it and the Rocket engines we all love -- for instance GM opted to
>step into the modern era with its' corporate small block by reducing the
>number of bolts surrounding the cylinder from 6 to 4 -- that's someting Olds
>did with the introduction of the 330 in 1964 -- Also take note that the new
>GM corporate engine also has much taller and narrower intake ports much more
>rectangular in shape than the traditional Chevy small block -- and finally
>the shape of the combustion chamber is almost identical to almost every Olds
>combustion chamber i have seen exept pre 64 engines, the only difference is
>the location of the sparkplug.-- I know there are those out there that will
>try to slam me on the exhaust port layout but hey ---  I still say the Olds
>Rocket lives on in a varied form in the new GM corporate engine -- I'll keep
>researching this
>
>
Yea, and the guys at Ch*vy will say a Ch*vy 350 is a Ch*vy 350 is a Ch*vy
350...

Anon. I

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

From: "C.R.F." <wizkid@inlink.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:26:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Remaking Olds engines

At 05:02 PM 2/22/97 -0400, you wrote:
>  Here i go again,
>                           Just wondering what kind of market there would=
 be
>in remaking Oldsmobile cylinder blocks and head castings.  For instance an
>upgraded version of all displacement blocks with 4 bolt mains and heavier
>main webs or even possibly extending the main web up into the lifter=
 valley,
>or possibly the introduction of a big block Olds with a 403 cylinder bore.
> How about the reintroduction of  "C" and "F" casting heads for the big
>block, and the reintroduction of  some of the better small block head
>castings.
>     Would there be any buyers out there -- what kind of price ranges would
>be the most logical -- be reasonable.
>
>   P.S.=20
>           These blocks would also include the necesary oiling system
>improvements that Olds engines tend to need.
>  =20
>
>

RE: re-pop cylinder blocks

Ten to 15 years ago, some 'flat head hot rod types' with an 'in' with one of
the 'off shore' corporations, that builds autos as a part of their corporate
line, attempted just that.  The 'in' discussed the question, they even
sectioned an old engine, and while it was do-able, it was not really
affordable.  At that time they suggested that the cost would probably be
between $2000. and $3000. each, in 1000 minimum quantities.  Reorders in
1000 quantities would be less, probably substantially less, but that first
1000 was a killer.

In one of the books dealing with F*rds 1932 flat head V8, the bean counters
were costing out the prototype cylinder blocks at $15,000. each ($15,000.
1931 dollars).  They put a lot of man hours into saving otherwise
questionable blocks at that stage.  And later, in the Jeep, production span
of WWII, F*rds cost (F*rd has built more military Jeeps than Willys, a lot
more) the small 4 cylinder block used in the Jeep was 2 to 3 times as
expensive to founder than the V8, which had been in production for about ten
years.  They mentioned a cost of less than $20. ea!  ca. 1941!!!, for the V8
block.

It's not that a couple of hundred pounds of grey iron is all that expensive,
molding it into the right shape certainly is.

Why a 403 BB.  Wasn't the 403 a SB?  If I were involved, I would up the
block to > 500 cubes, leaving the interchangability aspects alone.

Cylinder heads are another matter.  Why not find a good pattern maker, and
do it yourself.  (This is not a joke).  Get approval from Oldsmobile (or GM,
so say whichever actually sanctions offically approved reproduction parts).
And have a field day.  If you're willing to bear the expense, then you
should should reap the rewards.  I really doubt Olds is willing, way too
much expense (read that as risk) and promise of too little on the rewards
end, plus just a thought of product liability!!!

There are a lot of private foundries, in the U.S., that can do the work for
a cylinder head.  There are very few that can do a big one like a cylinder
block.

Just another 2=A2 fromn the Wiz.

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

From: "C.R.F." <wizkid@inlink.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:28:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Olds vs Chevy

At 06:01 PM 2/22/97 -0400, you wrote:
> er uh umm what's the F list?
>
>
As a guess, it is probably a list server such as this that deals with GM "F"
bodies.

Anon. I

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

From: "C.R.F." <wizkid@inlink.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:33:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Pronouncing 442

At 06:26 PM 2/22/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>I think if this subject is discussed ten or fifteen more days then all the=
=20
>>hungry people of the Earth will be fed, the homeless will have shelter,=
 and
>all=20
>>the warring nations will declare peace. That's just how important this
subject=20
>>is.
>>
>>Art Fuller
>>'70 442 Convt.
>>'70 four forty-two coupe, or whatever anybody wants to call it.
>
>Umm, is that coupe a "coop" or a "coop-ay" or is the "p" supposed to be
>silent? :)
>
>
>
>   =20
>      Charley Buehner       | "buehner@cis.nmclites.edu"
>      500 4th Ave.          | "charley@rocketship.com"
>      Box 1255              | Montana State University-Northern
>      Havre, Montana 59501  | http://cis.nmclites.edu/~buehner
>      "Rockit 1"            | '81 Olds Cutlass 425
>      "BT UR 4D"            | '70 Buick GS 455
>             (Real Cars Don't Wear Bowties)
>

Actually I believe its the word 'coup=E9' borrowed from the French.  In as
much as English usage doesn't need=20
the accent marks, the "=E9" is usually used as a plain old "e" and was
pronounced 'cou-pay.'  Today, it's usually spoken as 'coop.'

The Wiz

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

From: Greg Beaulieu <ab348@chebucto.ns.ca>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:42:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Olds vs Chevy

On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, Jason Labay wrote:
> Olds content: I finally saw that 455 Rocket video by Kathy Mattea last
> night. What a terrible song, IMO. But yet country is my least favorite kind
> of music so I doubt anything could make me like it.....

Really think so? I'm surprised... I'm not a huge country music fan, like
some but not most; but this tune isn't really a country song, more
bluesey than anything. I really like it, regardless of the Olds connection.

Greg Beaulieu        ab348@chebucto.ns.ca        Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

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

From: "C.R.F." <wizkid@inlink.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:44:28 -0400
Subject: Re: more engine questions

At 07:33 PM 2/22/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Just out of curiosity, why is the Olds 350 better than the Chevy 350, or
>vice versa?
>
>               Jim
>
>               1990 Calais W-40
>               (previously, 1972 Monte Carlo)
>
>
>
After owning several of each, I say without a seconds hesitation, that given
the choice between my new CHEVROLET 350 and an Oldsmobile 350, I would
relagate the Oldsmobile to the boat anchor division.  And I did have an
Oldsmobile 350 boar anchor division at one time, with plenty of anchors in
stock.

And Choo Choo Charlie's comments not withstanding, I expect that the LT1 has
few peers in being the best small block on the market today.  Northstars are
not a slouch either.

And for the otherside of the coin.  In it's day, I think the 455 Oldsmobile
was the best BB on the market.

The Wiz

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

From: "C.R.F." <wizkid@inlink.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 22:13:09 -0400
Subject: V8 Mono-block Castings

I finished assembling my LT1 today, and while I was there I looked at the
Viking engine.  Oldsmobile is in line for first honors, as the Viking is a
one piece casting.

Does anybody know of a V8 engine, with a mono-block engine casting that
pre-dates 1929?

If not, then Oldsmobile may have first honors.

The Wiz

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

From: Greg Beaulieu <ab348@chebucto.ns.ca>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 22:27:45 -0400
Subject: Re: more engine questions

On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, C.R.F. wrote:
> After owning several of each, I say without a seconds hesitation, that given
> the choice between my new CHEVROLET 350 and an Oldsmobile 350, I would
> relagate the Oldsmobile to the boat anchor division.  And I did have an
> Oldsmobile 350 boar anchor division at one time, with plenty of anchors in
> stock.

Fair enough, except you're comparing a 1997-vintage engine with one whose
development stopped sometime prior to 1980. Hardly an even playing field,
as the politicos like to say.

> And Choo Choo Charlie's comments not withstanding, I expect that the LT1 has
> few peers in being the best small block on the market today.  Northstars are
> not a slouch either.

The Northstar and it's cousin the Aurora V-8 are what would make a better
comparison with the current Ch*vy V-8. The Aurora being the spiritual
descendant of the old Rocket V-8s if nothing else...


Greg Beaulieu        ab348@chebucto.ns.ca        Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

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

From: Dave Paulison <dpauliso@gate.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 22:40:19 -0400
Subject: Bodywork

Hey gang,

I'm preparing to do some bodywork to my Olds.  I will be attempting to do
most/all of the work myself; I figure I can't possibly make it look any
worse than it does now.  What I need is some input on what some of you have
done to repair rust holes.  I won't be fixing it the ~right~ way (welding in
patch panels, etc).  I will just be using some type of body filler.  I am
aware that it won't last long; if I get a couple years out of the paint job
I'll be happy.  Maybe then I can afford to take it somewhere and have it
done right.  Anyway, I need to know what works best/lasts longest as far as
treating/eliminating rust goes.  I will back any large patch jobs with
fiberglass where I can access the back of the body panel, but I can't get to
all of them.  I have some type of rust eliminator called "Extend" and some,
uh, Ospho (sp).  Should I use them, or get some POR-15 and forget the others?

Any input is appreciated!

- --
Dave Paulison                  1969 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme
Melbourne, Florida             1993 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS
dpauliso@gate.net

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

From: Jason Labay <z28cfi@gwis.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 22:39:48 -0400
Subject: Re: more engine questions

>On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, C.R.F. wrote:
>> After owning several of each, I say without a seconds hesitation, that
given >> the choice between my new CHEVROLET 350 and an Oldsmobile 350, I
would >> relagate the Oldsmobile to the boat anchor division.  And I did have
an >> Oldsmobile 350 boar anchor division at one time, with plenty of anchors
in >> stock.

I agree here. I have both currently: Olds 350 in the 442 and the LT1 in the
Z/28. Both are the same in cubic inches, but thats about it. It is amazing
how the 350 in my 442 is so much less powerful than the 350 in my Z. The
Z/28 even has more smog equipment on it....

>Greg Beaulieu wrote:
>Fair enough, except you're comparing a 1997-vintage engine with one whose
>development stopped sometime prior to 1980. Hardly an even playing field,
>as the politicos like to say.

Good point. I imagine technology is the reasons why the LT1 is as powerful
as it is.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Jason Labay (z28cfi@gwis.com)  Akron, Ohio  f-list since 5/95
93 Camaro Z/28......Patriot Red, TFX cat-back, blackouts, Firehawk SVX tires
80 Olds 4-4-2  W-30..http://www.442.com/labay.html

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

From: Kevin Wong <yu135008@yorku.ca>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 22:56:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Olds vs. Chevy

> Just out of curiosity, why is the Olds 350 better than the Chevy 350, or
> vice versa?

The Olds 350 is more powerful.  For example, in the late '70s, the
Oldsmobile engine was rated at 170bhp versus the 145bhp output
of Chevr*let's 350.  From what I've seen, the Rocket is the quieter runner
due to the 'clatter' associated with Ch*v valvetrains.  I believe the Ch*v
engine became the sole corporate OHV V8 mainly due to its smaller
size and corresponding lower weight, which is extremely important with
respect to the CAFE.  If one looks at GM V8's in the Eighties, it is clear
that during the onslaught of tightening emissions regulations, far more
development dollars went into the bowtie engine.  By 1990, the Ch*v 305
produced 170bhp, while the Olds 307 could only manage to muster 140bhp.

Kevin Wong

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

From: Howdy <y5x5a5jv@coastalnet.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 23:21:50 -0400
Subject: Re: please stop Pronouncing 442

Please stop this crap, I've had it with the petty bickering bullshit and
am ready to cancel my subscription unless we all stop acting like a
bunch of punks........Have a nice night.
Brian Kennedy
85 Cutlass/455
"Old Blue"
USMC

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

From: prlmteed@idcnet.com
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 22:31:46 -0400
Subject: more 307

What more info can I get you?  (Really, I don't know).  I've never really run
into one like this before.  I was hoping to find something like a bad batch of
 rings at GM in 87 or some sort of info like that.  I really think a quart to
400 mi. is too much for valve seals; if so it has to be rings.

I'm thinking about replacing the 307Y with a 307"9" (long block)from a good
engine rebuilder.  Do I need to come up with a different harmonic balancer?
148 HP (give or take) is a little anemic in a two-ton wagon and I'm
surrounded by counties that sniff the tailpipe annually so I can't get too
radical.  I'd still like to find an easy fix for the "Y" but I can't think of
anything I've overlooked. Thanks for all the info.

Pat

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

From: James & Joanne Chermack <chermac@exis.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 23:29:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Bodywork

At 10:40 PM 2/22/97 -0400, you wrote:
Hey gang,

I'm preparing to do some bodywork to my Olds.  I will be attempting to do
most/all of the work myself; I figure I can't possibly make it look any
worse than it does now.  What I need is some input on what some of you have
done to repair rust holes.  I won't be fixing it the ~right~ way (welding in
patch panels, etc).  I will just be using some type of body filler.  I am
aware that it won't last long; if I get a couple years out of the paint job
I'll be happy.  Maybe then I can afford to take it somewhere and have it
done right.  Anyway, I need to know what works best/lasts longest as far as
treating/eliminating rust goes.  I will back any large patch jobs with
fiberglass where I can access the back of the body panel, but I can't get to
all of them.  I have some type of rust eliminator called "Extend" and some,
uh, Ospho (sp).  Should I use them, or get some POR-15 and forget the others?

Any input is appreciated!

Dave Paulison

Dave

        You can make yourself a pretty effective repair the WRONG way if you
do a little preventive work also. POR-15 is an excellent product, but beware
to use it EXACTLY as the can says. Clean the rusted area the best you can. I
like to use a 12,000 rpm 90 degree grinder with a twisted wire wheel on it.
Then use a product called OSFO or metal prep. Put a coat of POR-15 over it
and let it dry thoroughly. Then you need to scuff it LIGHTLY. Don't break
the surface of the POR-15 and use a filler called Meta-Glass. This is
available from the Eastwood Company. Their products seem superior to alot of
the others I've tried. If the holes are large make sure you back the repair
up so the filler isn't just hanging in the hole. This will make a much
longer lasting repair. Also when your done getting the area painted try to
coat the back of the repair to seal it. This will keep the moisture out and
it will last much longer. This type of repair should last for more than 3-5
years. As long as you keep the area and the car well cleaned. If you have a
well for water like alot of us here have DON'T use it to wash your cars.
This will only kill all the work you just did. Dave I hope this helps you out.

Jim Chermack
70 Cutlass SX W-32
72 442

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

From: James & Joanne Chermack <chermac@exis.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 23:39:39 -0400
Subject: Re: more 307

At 10:31 PM 2/22/97 -0400, you wrote:
>What more info can I get you?  (Really, I don't know).  I've never really run
 >into one like this before.  I was hoping to find something like a bad batch
of >rings at GM in 87 or some sort of info like that.  I really think a quart
to 400 >mi. is too much for valve seals; if so it has to be rings. > >I'm
thinking about replacing the 307Y with a 307"9" (long block)from a good
>engine rebuilder.  Do I need to come up with a different harmonic balancer?
148 >HP (give or take) is a little anemic in a two-ton wagon and I'm
surrounded by >counties that sniff the tailpipe annually so I can't get too
radical.  I'd still >like to find an easy fix for the "Y" but I can't think
of anything I've >overlooked. >Thanks for all the info. > >Pat



Hey Guys

        The reason I thought it could be valve seals initially was the usage
was a quart per 1000 miles. I had a new 1986 M*stang GT and even after it
was broke in it used a quart per 1200 miles. Called the dealer and they said
it was the low tension oil rings and that this was NORMAL. Ha! The reason I
got back on this subject was I remembered that another possible problem
could be the intake manifold gasket is leaking near an intake port and its
slowly sucking it into the cylinder/s. I had a 260 V-8 that had intake
gasket problems. I went though two of them before I cured it. It's just a
thought.

Jim Chermack
70 Cutlass SX W-32
72 442

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

From: Escape442@aol.com
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 23:40:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Pronouncing 442

In a message dated 97-02-21 17:42:43 EST, you write:

<< > Gerald, This whole subject started when I commented how some ignorant
people
 > > say
 > > "Four Forty Two" instead of Four- Four-Two.   Ed    Escape442@aol.com

 Are you sure you don't mean 'uninformed', rather than 'ignorant', Ed?
 For instance, what were they calling your car *after* you corrected them?

 Just curious...


 Tim (Wondering If He Should Be Sorry for Continuing this Thread) Churchill
 ------------- >>
Tim,   I choose my words very carefully.  In my dictionary, the third
definition of ignorant is " Unaware or uninformed "  As far as how some
people take corrections, it depends entirely on their level of insecurity.  I
like to learn new things, so when I get corrected politely, I politely thank
them.  Ed    Escape442@aol.com

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

From: theogns <theogns@avana.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 22:57:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Buick in a ch*vy?  (was Re: Buick 350, 400)

>
> Anyone have any ideas or thoughts on an engine combo like this?  I don't
> know much about Buick's guts, nor do I really care about ch*vy's, but it is
> a really fascinating concept to me...


There is a common frankenstein motor combo consisting of:

Olds 455 block bored to accept Olds 425 pistons which are machined to
fit on buick rods on a buick crank that is in turn modified to fit the
Olds block. Whew! Anyway this is supposed to equal 495 cubic inches.

Danny

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

From: "Robert J. Barry" <rbarry@sequent1.providence.edu>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 23:44:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Buick in a ch*vy?  (was Re: Buick 350, 400)

At 05:26 PM 2/22/97 -0500, you wrote:
>you sh*t, Chuck!"  It's a small v8 with Buick stamped in the rocker covers,
>and ~looked~ extremely nasty.  Here's the trick:  It's a small block ch*vy
>with Buick crank, rods, heads, and assorted other guts.  The guy talked
>about ch*vy being GM's bastard child that used leftover parts from

Well, not so much leftovers, so much as the only small-block GM still
produces for racing purposes. Buick and Pontiac produced heads and intake
combos that would work on the "corporate" Ch*vy block (a less radical way of
doing what Olds did with their DRCE motors). Buick put the Stage II ports
from its V-6 heads into a head that would bolt onto a Ch*vy small-block,
cast their name in the rocker covers, and went racing with a "Buick" engine.

I think that's what your friend probably saw.
_______________________________________________________
Dr. Robert Barry  MailTo:RBarry@Sequent1.Providence.Edu
Theology Dept, Providence College, Providence, RI 02918

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

From: "Robert J. Barry" <rbarry@sequent1.providence.edu>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 23:44:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Remaking Olds engines

At 08:26 PM 2/22/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>                           Just wondering what kind of market there would be
>>in remaking Oldsmobile cylinder blocks and head castings.  For instance an
>>upgraded version of all displacement blocks with 4 bolt mains and heavier
>>main webs or even possibly extending the main web up into the lifter valley,
>>or possibly the introduction of a big block Olds with a 403 cylinder bore.

As much as I like the idea, I probably wouldn't spend more than $1000 for a
bare block. The reason for this is that there are a lot of 455 and suitable
small-blocks out there that are available for rebuilding, and that will fit
the bill for any kind of workout I would be giving them.

OTOH, if you could do a big-block with the 403's bore, that'd be around
550ci right there with a stock 455 crank. Sell a complete shortblock (block,
new forged crank, redone rods, the necessary custom pistons) for
$2200-$2500, and you've got yourself a customer right here.

>> How about the reintroduction of  "C" and "F" casting heads for the big
>>block, and the reintroduction of  some of the better small block head
>>castings.

I think the way to do it would be to "borrow" a more modern port design,
rather than a 30-year old one, and cast it into a head that will bolt onto
an Olds block. Sell them assembled, in aluminum, with adjustable rockers,
for $2000, and I'll go further into debt for those.

and Wiz writes:
>Why a 403 BB.  Wasn't the 403 a SB?  If I were involved, I would up the
>block to > 500 cubes, leaving the interchangability aspects alone.

That's why he suggested the 403 bore; it's a 3/8" overbore of the 455's bore.
_______________________________________________________
Dr. Robert Barry  MailTo:RBarry@Sequent1.Providence.Edu
Theology Dept, Providence College, Providence, RI 02918

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

From: "Robert J. Barry" <rbarry@sequent1.providence.edu>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 23:44:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Olds vs Chevy

At 03:53 PM 2/22/97 -0500, you wrote:
>                              I don't know if anybody paid any attention to
>the article in Hot Rod magazine about the new Chevy 350 2nd generation LT1.
[snip]
>try to slam me on the exhaust port layout but hey ---  I still say the Olds
>Rocket lives on in a varied form in the new GM corporate engine -- I'll keep

Look into it! Lots of recycling going on in the engineering world.

BTW, why does the Olds always get a bad rap on its exhaust port layout? In
stock form, the exhaust ports on a 350 or 403 are *huge* compared to a
smogger 350 Ch*vy's exhaust ports. Granted, I suppose GM produces a Bowtie
head with great flow figures, and in the big-block world, an L-88 427 would
flow well enough to spin to 7500rpm, but from a standard passenger car
motor, it appears that Olds has a better starting point.
_______________________________________________________
Dr. Robert Barry  MailTo:RBarry@Sequent1.Providence.Edu
Theology Dept, Providence College, Providence, RI 02918

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

From: Escape442@aol.com
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 23:47:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Pronouncing 442

In a message dated 97-02-21 17:45:36 EST, you write:

<<  Gerald, This whole subject started when I commented how some ignorant
people
 > say
 > "Four Forty Two" instead of Four- Four-Two.   Ed    Escape442@aol.com
 >

 Damnit all, I say "Four Forty Two" and I think it sounds allright
  >>
Just remember that  there are a lot of guys who don't have the courage to
correct you , but will nonetheless snicker behind your back.  I guess this is
one of those things that separates the serious enthusiast from the novice.
  Escape442@aol.com

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

From: Dave Paulison <dpauliso@gate.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 23:55:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Parts for sale

>69 442 4 spoke aluminum sport steering wheel......$95

Ninety five bucks?!  They're not ~that~ rare, are they??

- --
Dave Paulison                  1969 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme
Melbourne, Florida             1993 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS
dpauliso@gate.net

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

From: "Kenneth G. Holland Jr." <rottin@coil.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 23:47:42 -0400
Subject: Re: ARP main studs

C.R.F. wrote:
>

(LOTS of sound advive snipped)
>
> The Wiz

  Thanks alot for the reply.  I'll call on Monday
and find out the scoop.

- --
 rottin@coil.com

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

From: Escape442@aol.com
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 00:09:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Whats in a name?? Dodge VS Olds

In a message dated 97-02-21 18:15:38 EST, you write:

<< 	Has anybody else noticed that Dodge (of all makes) has been using
 thoes types of names for cars again?  Things like Avenger (sounds cool,
 was also a WWII torpedo bomber) and the Intrepid (as in U.S.S Intrepid)
 and Viper (again, sounds *very* cool, and even has car to match!)
 Oldsmobile still has a couple of good ones, like the Aurora, Cutlass, and
 even Intrigue sound cool (and we'd all like to see the return of 442
 however you want to say it :). Still, it's hard to top names like
 Starfire, Jetfire, Satalite, Wildcat, etc.
 	
 				Scott >>
Scott,  I think Dodge is THE preeminent  car maker of today.  Those names
reflect that companies determination to not only recover but be the top dog.
 Does Olds have the balls to build a Viper or Prowler?  No, they are content
to push that Easter egg they call the Aurora.  Sorry, it's got 4 doors. as
for the other new names, all they are doing is playing to the "Verb" name
game started by the Japanese.
Escape442@aol.com

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

From: Escape442@aol.com
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 00:17:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Fuel Injection

I seem to remember Cadillac using a fuel injected Olds 350 in their early
'80's Sevilles. Does anyone know the details on this setup?
  Escape442@aol.com

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

From: Escape442@aol.com
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 00:13:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Rocket 88 Song

In a message dated 97-02-21 18:26:16 EST, you write:

<< > Help Oldsheads,
 > What was the name of the jazz/blues group who did that Rocket 88 song. I
 > have a copy of the song for the Multimedia section but I dont know the
name
 > of the group.

 Isn't that Jackie Brenston?

 Kurt
 71 442 >>

Kurt,  Your right, I have the album, which has several 88 songs. It came out
circa '53.
Escape442@aol.com

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

From: James & Joanne Chermack <chermac@exis.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 00:21:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Parts for sale

At 11:55 PM 2/22/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>69 442 4 spoke aluminum sport steering wheel......$95
>
>Ninety five bucks?!  They're not ~that~ rare, are they??
>
>--
>Dave Paulison

Dave

        That's actually pretty cheap. Going prices are $50-100, depends on
condition. Some guys are asking $125-135 for the things. They aren't worth
that much to me, unless it's N.O.S.

Jim Chermack
70 Cutlass SX W-32
72 442


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

From: Escape442@aol.com
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 00:25:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Pron. 442 and dashes

In a message dated 97-02-21 18:26:33 EST, you write:

<< Ed: did you say you had a copy of an article on a dash metal replacement
in
 an a-body ? I'm ready to tackle this job next.  Four weeks with my new Mig
 welder, and two quarter panels and a wheel house later, I'm CONFIDENT !!


 Digest Frank//Tallahassee//FL
  >>
Frank,  After inquiring about that subject, Joe Padavano faxed me the copies
of an article he had.  The illustrations are dark, but it is very helpful.  I
would be happy to fax them to you if you have access to a fax.  I also
invested in a good MIG welder, I am looking forward to using it. Tell me more
about your project while your at it.
Escape442@aol.com

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

From: Escape442@aol.com
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 00:33:36 -0400
Subject: "Y" and "9" 307's

In a message dated 97-02-21 18:26:37 EST, you write:

<<   I think the part numbers are in the FAQ for the differences between
      the '84 VIN "Y" and VIN "9".  I'm sure it's very similar on the '87,
      but with a different camshaft due to the roller lifters.  If I can
      remember correctly, the difference is the cam, valve springs, harmonic
      balancer, carb, air cleaner, and dual cat-back exhaust.

      If you're trying to get a Y up to 9 power standards, I would start
      with a cam and valve spring change, but perhaps use a mild Mondello
      cam rather than the factory piece, and then rejet and retune your carb
      to match.  I have the spec sheet for the factory '84 HO cam, and I've
      been meaning to compare it to some of the aftermarket units available
      (like Mondello's JM16-18).  Next get a more free breathing air cleaner
      and cat-back dual exhaust.

      Tom Lentz >>
Tom,  Does that series engine really use roller lifters?  I owned one and
never heard that before.  Escape442@aol.com

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

From: Escape442@aol.com
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 00:37:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Conv. Top Adjustment

In a message dated 97-02-21 18:26:42 EST, you write:

<< Have fun with the hinges.  Replacing the pins isn't to bad, but putting
the
 door back on and lining it up is a pretty good trick.  If you do take the
 hinges off, mark the body and door with the position of the hinges now, so
 when you put the door back on, you have some place to start.  You will need
 at least one buddy (preferably two) to help do this, and lots of patience.

 Good luck,
 Dave. >>
I found a neat way to do it alone, take a floor jack with a pad on the shoe
and use it to balance the weight of the door while your lining it up.  It
takes a little practice, but it's workable.  Escape442@aol.com

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

From: Escape442@aol.com
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 00:45:22 -0400
Subject: Re: 442

In a message dated 97-02-21 18:27:50 EST, you write:

<< Well, then, what about the 747 Jet????  (pronounced
 "four fourty seven") >>
Now that you bring that up, let's discuss that!  They used seven "o" ( should
be zero) seven for the 707.  Iv'e heard seven five seven for the 757.  how
about seven thirty seven for 737.  The main difference between these examples
and 4-4-2 is the use of hyphens, which should clarify this.
  Escape442@aol.com

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

From: Escape442@aol.com
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 00:48:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Pronouncing 442

In a message dated 97-02-21 18:27:54 EST, you write:

<< There, we've come full-circle back to the new-olds marketing thread.
      Can the four-four vs. four-forty thing die now, or do I have to make a
      Nazi reference to offically declare it dead?  :-)

      Tom Lentz
      tlentz@teknon.com >>
Tom, I have been having so much fun keeping this alive, I sure would hate to
end it now!  It's sort of an endurance test.  Escape442@aol.com

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

From: Escape442@aol.com
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 00:59:12 -0400
Subject: Re: more engine questions

In a message dated 97-02-21 22:32:19 EST, you write:

<< Gentlemen,

 	Oldsmobile was sued and lost for putting chevy engines in some 1973
 Cutlass's.  Olds could not keep up with comsumer demand
 in the engine department, so some owners sued olds for putting chevy
 engines in their Oldsmobiles and won.  The Olds 350 is better than the
 chevy 350.

 					John Foster >>
Your almost right, the year was either '76 or '77. I remember having an
argument with some stooge who said that since he could now get a Chevy, now
he would buy a Cutlass!   Escape442@aol.com

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

From: Escape442@aol.com
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 01:03:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Pronouncing 442

In a message dated 97-02-21 22:32:20 EST, you write:

<< I think if this subject is discussed ten or fifteen more days then all the

 hungry people of the Earth will be fed, the homeless will have shelter, and
all
 the warring nations will declare peace. That's just how important this
subject
 is.

 Art Fuller
 '70 442 Convt.
 '70 four forty-two coupe, or whatever anybody wants to call it.
  >>
Art, Get ready, now we are going on to airliner designations!  Let 'em
starve, or as Sam Kinison used to say "MOVE OUT OF THE DESERT!!!!"
  Escape442@aol.com

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

From: Escape442@aol.com
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 01:06:22 -0400
Subject: Re: more engine questions

In a message dated 97-02-21 23:44:31 EST, you write:

<<  Sir,
           A law suite is just fine -- please explain the Olds 350 in my 78
 Seville or the Buick 231 V6 in many many post '76 Monte Carlos and
Cutlasses,
 or even the Chevy 305's and 350's in 83 up firebirds

  >>
Have you never read the fine print in your brochures?  " GM engines from
various sources are used"     Escape442@aol.com

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

From: sguiller@stumail.engr.udayton.edu
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:12:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Olds Starfire curiosities

I've got a picture in my '65 88 series owners manual -- DAMN that
console and shifter look good (but I'd love to find one for mine!)
Does anyone have production figures?

Shaun R. Guillermin
'65 Starfire
'65 T-Bird
Shaun R. Guillermin

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

From: Bob McElroy <rmcelroy@pitnet.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 02:14:22 -0400
Subject: Re: ARP main studs

>the brand new 1/2 inch ARP stud
>snapped in half.  After alot of cursing

Definitely understandable and something we would all probably do in that=
 case.

>My question is this.. Yall think the
>first set of studs I torqued to 180ft. lbs. can be reused?  They didnt
>break. These studs are abit pricey.  Hopefully I will only have to buy
>the one that broke.  Anyone have any experience with this?=20

I know that new main studs don't exactly grow on trees, but I wouldn't
trust the other studs.  From what I've learned about modern engine
fasteners (mainly rod & main bolts/studs), they are designed to be used
once and then discarded.  The concept is called "torque to yield."
Basically, the bolt will hold tightest just at the point where it starts to
yield (the yield strength of the material.)  At the yield point, the bolt
is permanently deformed, and if the bolt is then removed, it will be
slightly longer than it originally was, and will not be able to be torqued
down to the same extent (i.e. it will not be as strong as it was=
 originally.)

Depending on your relationship with your parts dealer, the dealer may incur
the cost of replacing the set even if the manufacturer wouldn't.  But, I've
always heard good things about ARP, so I expect that they would replace
your stud set with a new set.  And they would probably want to inspect the
studs you have, because 180 ft=B7lbs shouldn't be enough to snap a brand new
stud.  It may have surpassed the yield point of the bolt, but surely not
the tensile strength or the ultimate strength of the bolt.

Bob McElroy

P.S.   If anyone is concerned that I just stated that once you torque the
fastener to check oil clearance, you've ruined the fastener, don't worry.
What I've been told is that when checking the oil clearance, don't torque
the fastener all the way, leave it about 3 to 5 ft=B7lbs loose and you won't
torque the bolt to the yield point.  Also, the bolt manufacturers
recommended torque value is already slightly below the yield point to allow
for minor variations in material quality from batch to batch.

And finally, I apologize for the length of this reply, especially on a
rather uninteresting topic such as bolt strength.

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

From: Bob McElroy <rmcelroy@pitnet.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 02:15:29 -0400
Subject: Re: more engine questions

>>> After owning several of each, I say without a seconds hesitation, that
given
>>> the choice between my new CHEVROLET 350 and an Oldsmobile 350, I would
>>> relagate the Oldsmobile to the boat anchor division.  And I did have an
>>> Oldsmobile 350 boar anchor division at one time, with plenty of anchors in
>>> stock.
>
>I agree here. I have both currently: Olds 350 in the 442 and the LT1 in the
>Z/28. Both are the same in cubic inches, but thats about it. It is amazing
>how the 350 in my 442 is so much less powerful than the 350 in my Z. The
>Z/28 even has more smog equipment on it....
>
>>Greg Beaulieu wrote:
>>Fair enough, except you're comparing a 1997-vintage engine with one whose
>>development stopped sometime prior to 1980. Hardly an even playing field,
>>as the politicos like to say.
>
>Good point. I imagine technology is the reasons why the LT1 is as powerful
>as it is.

What kind of output could you get from an Oldsmobile 350 given all of the
technology that is present in the LT1 engine.  I believe the LT1 has a
third generation tuned runner fuel-injection system.  One of the things
many people don't know when comparing port fuel-injection to carburetors is
the intake runner shape and length.  With a carburetor, the air flow
passages must be designed to keep the fuel mixed with the air charge.  This
is sometimes contrary to the design that makes best power.  The port
fuel-injection system doesn't mix the air and fuel until right above the
intake valve, minimizing the fuel that clings to the runner walls.  This
aids fuel economy, vehicle drivability, and reduces hydrocarbon emissions.
Then there's the tremendous advances in emissions controls themselves, such
that the catalytic converter is no longer an exhaust restriction thanks to
high-flow monolithic catalysts.

Comparing the last Oldsmobile engine to the current LT1 Chevy is like
comparing apples to pineapples.

Bob McElroy

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

From: olivier thibault <olivier@9bit.qc.ca>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 04:04:42 -0400
Subject: Re: 1976 oldsmobile delta 88 royale

Daniel A. Gulino wrote:
>
> At 07:12 PM 2/21/97 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >Yai think your right!
> >But Even at 5 feet my car seem to be new! :)
>
> I think we all think that way!
>
> >I see your Delta 88 royale 1975!
> >And mine is something like this! But mine don`t have white leather in
> >the
> >interior!Its black something like suede! :)
>
> Thanks, but mine's not leather, either.  It's white vinyl.
>
> Dan
>
> ************************************************
> Dan Gulino
> gulino@bobcat.ent.ohiou.edu
> http://ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu/~gulino/rides.html
> 1975 Delta 88 Convertible
> ************************************************

Ok! :)
Anyway your car is in a pretty shape!
I hope the motor look like the body! :)


Olivier
Delta 88 Royale 1976

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

From: Kevin Wong <yu135008@yorku.ca>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 04:34:36 -0400
Subject: Re: more engine questions

> the intake runner shape and length.  With a carburetor, the air flow
> passages must be designed to keep the fuel mixed with the air charge.  This
> is sometimes contrary to the design that makes best power.  The port
> fuel-injection system doesn't mix the air and fuel until right above the
> intake valve, minimizing the fuel that clings to the runner walls.  This
> aids fuel economy, vehicle drivability, and reduces hydrocarbon emissions.

GM has developed a carbureted LT4 crate engine, which will succeed the
ZZ3, that produces 421hp @ 6250rpm and 415ft-lbs @ 4250rpm with a 4bbl
intake!  Apparently, the midrange torque of the LT4 was *improved* with
the longer runners (compared to the fuel injection manifold) of the 4bbl
manifold.  Port injection will give you better cold driveability and more
precise control over exhaust emissions.  I've read that fuel injection is
worth, at most, 5% in terms of reducing fuel consumption.

One of the key features of the LT1 and LT4 engines is their use of
a reverse-flow cooling system.  The cylinder bores remain at a more
uniform temperature which reduces friction, and the cylinder heads stay
cooler.  The latter enables the computer to run an aggressive
spark advance algorithm with the 10.5-10.8:1 compression ratio.  The
heads, whether in aluminum or iron form, flow very well in stock trim.  In
the case of the LT4, sodium filled exhaust valves helps to further
scavenge heat from the combustion chamber.  It is interesting that GM's
latest smallblock, the LS1, has abandoned the reverse-flow cooling (less
$) and gear-driven water pump.  Since they were working with a clean sheet
of paper, they probably optimized the coolant flow so that the more
elaborate system was no longer necessary.

When Cadillac added port injection to the Olds 350 (in 1975), the 10hp
gain was mainly attributed to cooler manifolding.  Similarly small
power gains were also achieved when the fuel injection option was applied
to regular Cadillac engines - the main selling point was better
driveability.  It is evident that these early EFI systems did not deliver
as promised; witness the number of early Sevilles (pre-1980) with
transplanted 4bbl intakes and carburetors.  I have no doubt that if GM had
developed the Olds V8 as their corporate smallblock, it would be ahead of
the LT1/LT4 motors in numerous ways.  As I've already noted, I think the
main reason for GM's choice was for weight savings, which has a direct
impact on CAFE ratings.

Kevin Wong

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

From: Kevin Wong <yu135008@yorku.ca>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 04:39:20 -0400
Subject: Re: "Y" and "9" 307's

> Does that series engine really use roller lifters?  I owned one and
> never heard that before.  Escape442@aol.com

307's came with roller lifters starting in 1985.  If I recall correctly,
there was a '81 Motor Trend article where they compared two Oldsmobiles,
the "duelling diesels", and it was noted that these engines had roller
lifters.

Kevin Wong

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

From: Frank Gonzalez <PLPAUDIO@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 04:43:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Olds vs Chevy

I am by no means an expert on Chevy engines especially the newer ones.I
do know
that a couple of years ago I raced various(6) times a bone stock 70 w-31
350 Cutlass against
a then new 89 350 IROC belonging to my cousin and beat it every time.I
know that the newer
versions are faster but considering that I was running a 19 year old car
against a state
of the art fuel injected roller motor I was damn proud of my 350 Olds.So
you can keep
youre chevy I will just wave at you as I go by.
Frank
70 442
71 442 W-30Convt
72 Cutlass S
90 LSC

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

From: "C.R.F." <wizkid@inlink.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 06:10:39 -0400
Subject: Re: more engine questions

At 10:27 PM 2/22/97 -0400, you wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, C.R.F. wrote:
>> After owning several of each, I say without a seconds hesitation, that
given >> the choice between my new CHEVROLET 350 and an Oldsmobile 350, I
would >> relagate the Oldsmobile to the boat anchor division.  And I did have
an >> Oldsmobile 350 boar anchor division at one time, with plenty of anchors
in >> stock. > >Fair enough, except you're comparing a 1997-vintage engine
with one whose >development stopped sometime prior to 1980. Hardly an even
playing field, >as the politicos like to say. > >> And Choo Choo Charlie's
comments not withstanding, I expect that the LT1 has >> few peers in being the
best small block on the market today.  Northstars are >> not a slouch either. >
>The Northstar and it's cousin the Aurora V-8 are what would make a better
>comparison with the current Ch*vy V-8. The Aurora being the spiritual
>descendant of the old Rocket V-8s if nothing else... > > >Greg Beaulieu
ab348@chebucto.ns.ca        Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada >

Greg,

Well spoken.  I could not have posted the other side any better.  And I
agree with the logic of your position.

When I worked at the family business I was the 'fleet manager' and had about
20 vehicles under my control.  As far as the automobiles were concerned, the
drivers pretty much decided what they wanted, save for the spate of Olds
diesels, they were all good.  But the best service bar none (ca. 1968-1988)
were the 350 Ch*vies.  When equipped with four barrel carbs and low
numberical rear axle ratios gave decent gas milage for the day.  Nothing
like I believe I'm getting with the LT1 however.  Unfortunately the diesels
COULD have been a lifes blessing if they had been good power plants.

After transplanting a plethora of olds 350s, 455s and one 403 into the
broken down diesels, the 455's proved to be best BB engine in our service.
They usually ran 3 to 5 mpg behind the 350s (0lds and Chevy) when both were
conservatively driven.  For overall good service the Chevy 350s and the Olds
350 were both "trouble free."  I also put a 455 & a TH350 in a F*rd pickup
that couldn't get out if its own way with it's miserable 302.  I didn't spec
that truck, or we would not have had it.  With the 455 it worked every day.

If I was re-engining a car today for my personal transportation, and cost
was the major object, I would use a factory new Chevy crate 350, as giving
the most 'bang for the buck.'  If cost were only a minor concern I would
build an LT1.  Late last year I assembeled parts for a 455 and spent days
looking to find a matching pair of cylinder heads.  Where as little as five
years ago, I would have gotten a good complete core the first day out, and
at moderate cost.  The supply of 455's is dwindling.

The Wiz

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

From: "C.R.F." <wizkid@inlink.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 06:16:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Olds vs. Chevy

At 10:56 PM 2/22/97 -0400, you wrote:
>> Just out of curiosity, why is the Olds 350 better than the Chevy 350, or
>> vice versa?
>
>The Olds 350 is more powerful.  For example, in the late '70s, the
>Oldsmobile engine was rated at 170bhp versus the 145bhp output
>of Chevr*let's 350.  From what I've seen, the Rocket is the quieter runner
>due to the 'clatter' associated with Ch*v valvetrains.  I believe the Ch*v
>engine became the sole corporate OHV V8 mainly due to its smaller
>size and corresponding lower weight, which is extremely important with
>respect to the CAFE.  If one looks at GM V8's in the Eighties, it is clear
>that during the onslaught of tightening emissions regulations, far more
>development dollars went into the bowtie engine.  By 1990, the Ch*v 305
>produced 170bhp, while the Olds 307 could only manage to muster 140bhp.
>
>Kevin Wong
>
>
>
More good logic.  Only I think I would have used (was often) instead of (is)
as the fourth word in the second sentence.

However, your quieter remark doesn't quite hit the mark, if one assumes that
the adjustable valve train in the Chevy is responsible for the noise!  Where
in, the noise has value in other departments.

The 307 Olds that I had in my 84 Delta 88 was the pits, that was effectively
upgraded with a 455.

The Wiz

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

From: "C.R.F." <wizkid@inlink.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 06:41:55 -0400
Subject: Re: more 307

At 11:39 PM 2/22/97 -0400, you wrote:
>At 10:31 PM 2/22/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>What more info can I get you?  (Really, I don't know).  I've never really
run >>into one like this before.  I was hoping to find something like a bad
batch of >>rings at GM in 87 or some sort of info like that.  I really think
a quart >to 400 >>mi. is too much for valve seals; if so it has to be rings.
>> >>I'm thinking about replacing the 307Y with a 307"9" (long block)from a
good >>engine rebuilder.  Do I need to come up with a different harmonic
balancer? >148 >>HP (give or take) is a little anemic in a two-ton wagon and
I'm surrounded by >>counties that sniff the tailpipe annually so I can't get
too radical.  I'd >still >>like to find an easy fix for the "Y" but I can't
think of anything I've >>overlooked. >>Thanks for all the info. >> >>Pat > > >
>Hey Guys > >        The reason I thought it could be valve seals initially
was the usage >was a quart per 1000 miles. I had a new 1986 M*stang GT and
even after it >was broke in it used a quart per 1200 miles. Called the dealer
and they said >it was the low tension oil rings and that this was NORMAL. Ha!
The reason I >got back on this subject was I remembered that another possible
problem >could be the intake manifold gasket is leaking near an intake port
and its >slowly sucking it into the cylinder/s. I had a 260 V-8 that had
intake >gasket problems. I went though two of them before I cured it. It's
just a >thought. > >Jim Chermack >70 Cutlass SX W-32 >72 442 >

With the leak in the intake manifold gasket, didn't this cause excessive
blue smoke, at least at start up?

The Wiz

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

From: "C.R.F." <wizkid@inlink.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 06:46:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Remaking Olds engines

>and Wiz writes:
>>Why a 403 BB.  Wasn't the 403 a SB?  If I were involved, I would up the
>>block to > 500 cubes, leaving the interchangability aspects alone.
>
>That's why he suggested the 403 bore; it's a 3/8" overbore of the 455's bore.
>_______________________________________________________
>Dr. Robert Barry  MailTo:RBarry@Sequent1.Providence.Edu
>Theology Dept, Providence College, Providence, RI 02918
>
>

Thanks Bob,

I get it?

The Wiz

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

End of oldsmobile-digest V1 #531
********************************
