
oldsmobile-digest    Saturday, September 18 2004    Volume 01 : Number 5026



Re: 81 Cutlass Diesel
35mph to pass the 3rd
Re: 81 Cutlass Diesel
Re: 81 Cutlass Diesel
61 Dynamic 88
Re: Headlight doors/cornering light lenses for Delta 88
Re: Headlight doors/cornering light lenses for Delta 88
Re: Headlight doors/cornering light lenses for Delta 88
Re: Headlight doors/cornering light lenses for Delta 88
81 Cutlass Diesel
RE: Windshield removal/replacement
81 Cutlass Diesel
35mph to pass the 3rd
Re: 81 Cutlass Diesel
50 + 50 != 100
Diesel Questions - Was Re: 81 Cutlass
Re: Diesel Questions - Was Re: 81 Cutlass
1959 Dynamic 88 Value??????
HEI too Big!!!
Re: Diesel Questions - Was Re: 81 Cutlass

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

Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 00:57:06 -0400
From: "ron fama" <77w30442@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: 81 Cutlass Diesel

you could just convert it to gas. 
gm also  had a lock up version of the th400, called a switch pitch,
just a thought
ron
- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Manly" <dmanlyr@comcast.net>
To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 12:22 AM
Subject: Re: 81 Cutlass Diesel


> Bruce,
> 
> I sure agree with you that the 200's are not very good transmissions. I also
> thought about the TH400 route, but I don't want to give up any further
> horsepower to transmission losses than I have to. Of course I doubt that I
> would ever have to touch the trans again with a 400. I would like to raise
> the converter lockup on the 200C that I have, and I imagine that I will have
> to replace it sooner rather than later. My other thought as to the 400 was
> that the rear cross member would have to be changed? Did you do this with
> your Cutlass? Or would it be possible to use the later 200R4 cross member?
> How did you hook up the switch pitch to your Cutlass? Manual or automatic
> switch?
> 
> I have had way more problems with the 200 trans than the diesel engines in
> these Olds. I have had a variety of different diesel models over the years
> (88, 98 and Cierra's, never till now a RWD Cutlass) and currently have this
> 81 Cutlass t-top. It has just over 32k original on it, but don't get to
> excited about the mileage it sat out in the sun all of its life, so while
> mechanically it is not worn out per say, the body weather-stripping and
> interior have taken it in the shorts. No rust at all though so it is worth
> doing something with it. I also don't think that the previous old lady owner
> did much of anything to it, ever. Funny though to see a almost 25 year old
> car with the factory exhaust system still intact! It had the OEM GM shocks
> on it still, and they had absolutely ZERO resistance either way!
> 
> So I am in the process of repairing many little things, I don't think I will
> paint the car as it is fairly nice, but it does need interior work. To make
> things a bit more difficult there it is in a light shade of green, which I
> like, but it is hard to find interior trim for it. I am also changing a few
> things that I know to detract from the drivability, such as the converter
> lockup. I generally don't slow down much for corners, so I have purchased
> the GN sway bars front and rear for it, and I think I will look around for a
> slightly stiffer and maybe 1" lower set of springs. A bit different for your
> average diesel driver, but I don't want to give up any of the speed that has
> taken so long to build up!
> 
> Thanks for your thoughts, David
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <bcroe@juno.com>
> To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 7:35 PM
> Subject: 81 Cutlass Diesel
> 
> 
>> You have a 350 cu diesel?  I have one of those, of course the
>> trans was blown when I got it.  The best trans for that car is
>> a THM400 SWitch Pitch and SWP controller.  With a 2.41 axle
>> (2.21 was standard) it has the pep of a regular car in town,
>> still can hit 30 mpg even without the lockup converter, bolts
>> right up to the engine, and no more transmission problems.
>>
>> Bruce Roe
>>
>> 12 Sep 2004  "David Manly" <dmanlyr@comcast.net> writes:
>> > This would be a non computer controlled 81' Cutlass with
>> > a diesel, 200c trans.  (yes, I would love to have a 350c or
>> > a 200r4, although finding one complete with a
>> > torque converter setup for a diesel is hard to find)
>>
> 
> 
>

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

Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 01:07:35 -0400
From: "Trade 2000" <travelchile@manquehue.net>
Subject: 35mph to pass the 3rd

Thanks. I will check, should be loser or tighter?
rgds
Matt

> Check the adjustment to the cable to the carb.  Bruce Roe
> 
> 17 Sep 2004 "Trade 2000" <travelchile@manquehue.net> writes:
> > On the Olds topic now - My TH350C was rebuild, works 
> > mucho better, but there is a big gap between the 2-3 
> > upshift. 1-2 is good, wery low in rpm, later the gearbox
> > waits till 35mph to pass the 3rd. All that when driving 
> > slowly, with high vacuum. At lower vacuum it will wait 
> > much more to shift, but this doesn't matter even better...
> > 
> > Any ideas about?
> > TIA
> > Matt
> > 81CS 468ci
> 
> 

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

Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:40:37 -0700
From: "David Manly" <dmanlyr@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: 81 Cutlass Diesel

Yes, conversion is always a thought, and I may one day, but right now I
don't want to end up going backwards ~ I want 30+ mpg (57 miles to work one
way, company moved darn them), plus I want a engine that I can start up and
give it a fair head of throttle without the stalling/poor running that carbs
are famous for. Guess I could convert to a FI engine, but I am getting into
fairly expensive territory there. And it would not be a "olds" any longer as
the small block olds kept a carb up to the end of production in 1990 ( I had
a 90 Custom Cruiser). Not discounting the olds 350FI as used in the late
70's Caddies, those are hard to find in runable or usable condition also, as
well as being somewhat lethargic for the fuel consumption. Of course finding
a decent diesel nowdays is also hard, and as I have found out, parts are
hard to come by which really surprised me considering how many of these cars
were out there at one time. One day though maybe I will turn this t-top into
a tire burner and relive a bit of my youth.

I do own a 83 Olds 88 with the gas 307, and to be perfectly honest, I wish
it was a diesel also. While it runs fairly good cold, I still cannot get
hard on the gas without some hesitation when cold. It also gets the normal
12-14 mpg around town with about 18 - 20 on the highway. Not to bad, but I
had a 82 Custom Cruiser with a diesel that got 32 on the highway and 18 or
so around town, and it was faster than the 88 to at least to 60 mph, but
then it had the advantage of a 200R4 with lower gears and the 88 only has a
three speed auto. I also had a 81' olds 98 diesel that I had the unfortunate
luck of getting a ticket for 92mph in a 60 zone (hey, no one was on the
road, it was straight level freeway, clear weather, nothing unsafe, at least
in my opinion) that also at a closer to 60mph returned a good solid 28 mpg
(with three speed auto)  I am just not afraid to put my foot in it. Guess
that comes from running boats, there the engines stay at or near max rpm for
extended time, with zero negatives other than fuel usage.

So it is really in ones own taste really, I ran my new (sold now, back to
the olds!) 1999 S-10 4 cyl / auto from Seattle to Los Angeles in less than
13 hours. With witnesses, and the fuel receipts showing times. That is over
a 85 mph average ~ over one mountain pass ~ not to shabby for what most
would consider a "underpowered" 4 cylinder (rather than the V-6) so you can
tell that I put my foot into it ~ which it seems most people are afraid to
do! Trust me though, never get stopped for speeds in excess of 150+ mph, let
alone 100 you pay for it dearly. (built 427 in a 68' Chevy SS427, MANY years
ago)

Thought about the switch pitch 400, just have some questions on it. I am
still learning on these RWD Cutlass size cars, there are  new one to me as I
have always owned the larger B/C models) I have really learned a lot on this
G-Body mailing list, it is amazing the amount of knowledgeable people on
here.


Thanks, David


- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ron fama" <77w30442@comcast.net>
To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: 81 Cutlass Diesel


> you could just convert it to gas.
> gm also  had a lock up version of the th400, called a switch pitch,
> just a thought
> ron
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "David Manly" <dmanlyr@comcast.net>
> To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 12:22 AM
> Subject: Re: 81 Cutlass Diesel
>
>
> > Bruce,
> >
> > I sure agree with you that the 200's are not very good transmissions. I
also
> > thought about the TH400 route, but I don't want to give up any further
> > horsepower to transmission losses than I have to. Of course I doubt that
I
> > would ever have to touch the trans again with a 400. I would like to
raise
> > the converter lockup on the 200C that I have, and I imagine that I will
have
> > to replace it sooner rather than later. My other thought as to the 400
was
> > that the rear cross member would have to be changed? Did you do this
with
> > your Cutlass? Or would it be possible to use the later 200R4 cross
member?
> > How did you hook up the switch pitch to your Cutlass? Manual or
automatic
> > switch?
> >
> > I have had way more problems with the 200 trans than the diesel engines
in
> > these Olds. I have had a variety of different diesel models over the
years
> > (88, 98 and Cierra's, never till now a RWD Cutlass) and currently have
this
> > 81 Cutlass t-top. It has just over 32k original on it, but don't get to
> > excited about the mileage it sat out in the sun all of its life, so
while
> > mechanically it is not worn out per say, the body weather-stripping and
> > interior have taken it in the shorts. No rust at all though so it is
worth
> > doing something with it. I also don't think that the previous old lady
owner
> > did much of anything to it, ever. Funny though to see a almost 25 year
old
> > car with the factory exhaust system still intact! It had the OEM GM
shocks
> > on it still, and they had absolutely ZERO resistance either way!
> >
> > So I am in the process of repairing many little things, I don't think I
will
> > paint the car as it is fairly nice, but it does need interior work. To
make
> > things a bit more difficult there it is in a light shade of green, which
I
> > like, but it is hard to find interior trim for it. I am also changing a
few
> > things that I know to detract from the drivability, such as the
converter
> > lockup. I generally don't slow down much for corners, so I have
purchased
> > the GN sway bars front and rear for it, and I think I will look around
for a
> > slightly stiffer and maybe 1" lower set of springs. A bit different for
your
> > average diesel driver, but I don't want to give up any of the speed that
has
> > taken so long to build up!
> >
> > Thanks for your thoughts, David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: <bcroe@juno.com>
> > To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
> > Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 7:35 PM
> > Subject: 81 Cutlass Diesel
> >
> >
> >> You have a 350 cu diesel?  I have one of those, of course the
> >> trans was blown when I got it.  The best trans for that car is
> >> a THM400 SWitch Pitch and SWP controller.  With a 2.41 axle
> >> (2.21 was standard) it has the pep of a regular car in town,
> >> still can hit 30 mpg even without the lockup converter, bolts
> >> right up to the engine, and no more transmission problems.
> >>
> >> Bruce Roe
> >>
> >> 12 Sep 2004  "David Manly" <dmanlyr@comcast.net> writes:
> >> > This would be a non computer controlled 81' Cutlass with
> >> > a diesel, 200c trans.  (yes, I would love to have a 350c or
> >> > a 200r4, although finding one complete with a
> >> > torque converter setup for a diesel is hard to find)
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>

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

Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:42:04 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: 81 Cutlass Diesel

> plus I want a engine that I can start up and
> give it a fair head of throttle without the stalling/poor running that
carbs
> are famous for.


That shouldn't be happening with a good carb, unless we're not talking about
the same thing. Cold engine with the proper choke setting, the carb should
work fine, and the car will accelerate.

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com

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

Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Grumblatt Jr <wgrumblatt@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: 61 Dynamic 88

- --0-1093508280-1095490404=:52973
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Seems yahoo's giving away a 61 Dynamic 88 http://promotions.yahoo.com/customride nice ride   Was not sure of the 394 motor but there it was in the FAQ 61-63    I can say I learnt something today...
On my 67 Delta 88 I keep going through RF wheel bearrings. I just don't get it, I'm lucky if I get a year out of that side, which equals around 5,00 miles.Left side no problem, In the 30 or sooooooo years of greasing and replacing them on my other vehicles, I have never had this problem before. Each time I replace I use a different manufacture's, which means several different countries too. I've tried different drums, no difference. I'm leaning towards the axle, but don't know how to check for.  I could use some suggestions on what to look for.. 
 
Thanks Bill G
67 Delta 88 Custom (The sleeper)
87 Custom Wagon   ( slooooow-RI--Derrrrrr )

- --0-1093508280-1095490404=:52973
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<DIV>Seems yahoo's giving away a 61 Dynamic 88 <A href="http://promotions.yahoo.com/customride">http://promotions.yahoo.com/customride</A> nice ride&nbsp;&nbsp; Was not sure of the 394 motor but there it was in the FAQ 61-63&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I can say I learnt something today...</DIV>
<DIV>On my 67 Delta 88 I keep going through RF wheel bearrings. I just don't get it, I'm lucky if I get a year out of that side, which equals around 5,00 miles.Left side no problem, In the 30 or&nbsp;sooooooo years of greasing and replacing them on my other vehicles,&nbsp;I have never had this problem before. Each time I replace I use a different manufacture's, which means several different countries too.&nbsp;I've tried different drums, no difference. I'm leaning towards the axle, but don't know how to check for.&nbsp; I could use some suggestions on what to look for.. </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Thanks Bill G</DIV>
<DIV>67 Delta&nbsp;88 Custom (The sleeper)</DIV>
<DIV>87 Custom Wagon&nbsp;&nbsp; ( slooooow-RI--Derrrrrr )</DIV>
- --0-1093508280-1095490404=:52973--

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

Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 07:33:17 -0500
From: "Branson Sparks" <bsparks@gosparkle.net>
Subject: Re: Headlight doors/cornering light lenses for Delta 88

Errrr.... It's just the standard door. On each side it's
got a large clear lens that looks like it has vertical
ribbed lines running through it, and then a yellow lens
that has the cornering light in it. The whole assembly
attaches with about 10 or 15 little black Torx screws.


Thanks!

- --Branson




On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
 Frank Fellman <frank.fellman@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> For an '85 88. eh?  Gimme a few days, Branson, and I'll
> see if 
> I can find 'em at Pick'n'Pull...  Um-- what color (in
> case I have 
> some options)?
>  
> Oh-- and stay clear of those F*rd SUVs, man!
>  
>                                      Phantom455
> =============================================
> 
> Branson Sparks <bsparks@gosparkle.net> wrote:
> 
> Greetings, all.
> 
> It's a long story that deals with an idiot and a ditzy
> girl, but the bottom line of everything is that I have
> been
> hit twice... Only damage to my '85 88 was the headlight
> doors/trim piece thingy that goes around the headlights
> and
> contains the cornering lights on both sides. Just
> wondering
> if anyone new where I could pick up a left and right side
> trim piece in good condition.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> TIA,
> Branson
> 

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

Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 08:53:17 -0400
From: "Dave Cullen" <david.cullen@snet.net>
Subject: Re: Headlight doors/cornering light lenses for Delta 88

>Only damage to my '85 88 was the headlight
> doors/trim piece thingy that goes around the headlights and
> contains the cornering lights on both sides.

Uhh... never saw an 85 with headlight doors. Mine looks like this:

http://pages.cthome.net/davecullen/delta_hood.jpg

The chrome bezels are still available from GM, and aftermarket ones show up
on eBay sometimes.

drc

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

Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 08:58:15 -0400
From: "Frederick Nissen" <fsnissen@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Headlight doors/cornering light lenses for Delta 88

> Uhh... never saw an 85 with headlight doors. Mine looks like this:


_____________

GM parts calls the chrome trim around the headlights "doors" instead of
"bezels."

Regards,
Fred

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

Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 09:54:32 -0400
From: SteveH <k0xp@dandy.net>
Subject: Re: Headlight doors/cornering light lenses for Delta 88

At Saturday, 18 September 2004, you wrote:

>>Only damage to my '85 88 was the headlight
>> doors/trim piece thingy that goes around the headlights and
>> contains the cornering lights on both sides.
>
>Uhh... never saw an 85 with headlight doors. Mine looks like 
>this:
>
>http://pages.cthome.net/davecullen/delta_hood.jpg
>
>The chrome bezels are still available from GM, and aftermarket 
>ones show up on eBay sometimes.

For some reason, the bezels are also called "doors", all the way 
back into the '60s. So he's actually talking about what others may 
call the bezels.

SteveH



===================================================================
EASY access to your email http://webmail.dandy.net/mr2/nph-mr.cgi
===================================================================

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

Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 00:28:08 -0500
From: bcroe@juno.com
Subject: 81 Cutlass Diesel

17 Sep 2004  "David Manly" <dmanlyr@comcast.net> writes:
> Bruce,
> 
> I sure agree with you that the 200's are not very good 
> transmissions. I also thought about the TH400 route, 
> but I don't want to give up any further horsepower to 
> transmission losses than I have to. 

Why does everybody think a 400 has horsepower losses? 
With a switch pitch (diesel really needs) the car will be a 
lot faster, for the same axle ratio.  To fully utilize a 4 speed 
auto, you need to change the axle. 

> My other thought as to the 400 was that the rear cross 
> member would have to be changed? Did you do this 
> with your Cutlass? 

I got a cross member from MTS, bolts in.  You need a 
short 400 yoke on your original drive shaft.  The shift 
linkage needs a little work.  

> How did you hook up the switch pitch to your Cutlass? 

I have an electronic control for the switch pitch, so do a 
hundred other people.  Better than the original control.  

> I have had way more problems with the 200 trans 
> than the diesel engines 

Diesels seem to be worse to the trans, get a 400.  
The same trans will ready if you convert to a big gas 
engine, a 403 isa bolt in.

Bruce Roe

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

Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 9:51:34 -0500
From: ilo@kwom.com
Subject: RE: Windshield removal/replacement

When I moved last year to my new house I had to move my 98 but of course the 
windshield was
out. So I just put on some sunglasses and drove it home, not thinking
about the wind at 
all.
My eyes teared so bad I could hardly see 5 feet in front of me and of
course hitting the 
wiper
switch by accident did not help either!!!!! ha ha

I broke my first windshield trying to get it out. I was fooled by the all 
the rust and thought 
it would
just come out easy. Well in one spot it was really stuck and I pushed and 
I won! Glass did 
not make it.
Very messy, if you can avoid it don't ever break a windshield when
removing. And if you 
do don't keep
on breaking it, it just gets worse.

I'm welding in some rust holes now in my upper channel, with some home
made patch 
panels. Hope to have
it done in another 10 years.....

And I will be painting it back to it's original color of Dk red and a
white padded top.

James Aiello
74 98
70 442
68 GTO



Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:36:39 -0700
From: "Schopen, Kenneth" <kenneth.schopen@medtronic.com>
Subject: RE: Windshield removal/replacement

Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:52:27 -0400
From: "Chris Carson" <fastcarson@prodigy.net>
Subject: Windshield removal/replacement

snip

And if I remove it at home, how do I get it to the
glass shop? drive with no windshield? (thinking Beverly
Hillbillies style....)

Thanks
Chris

That reminds me of when I drove the '71 home after I painted
it in a friend's shop. Bring some safety glasses and hope it
doesn't rain - it's no fun having cold rain pelt you in the
face. And use Rain-X on those safety glasses so you can see!

Kenneth
1971 Cutlass Supreme convertible
Phoenix, AZ

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

Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 10:07:41 -0500
From: bcroe@juno.com
Subject: 81 Cutlass Diesel

Sure you can covert an Olds to EFI, plenty of them are 
driving around, including at my house.  But its a bigger 
project than a 400 trans or gas engine swap, a LOT of 
fine tuning involved using a laptop.

17 Sep 2004  "David Manly" <dmanlyr@comcast.net> writes:
> Guess I could convert to a FI engine, but I am getting into
> fairly expensive territory there. And it would not be a "olds" any 
> longer as the small block olds kept a carb up to the end 
> of production

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

Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 10:08:54 -0500
From: bcroe@juno.com
Subject: 35mph to pass the 3rd

just experiment, or read the book.  Bruce

18 Sep 2004  "Trade 2000" <travelchile@manquehue.net> writes:
> Thanks. I will check, should be loser or tighter?
> rgds
> Matt
> 
> > Check the adjustment to the cable to the carb.  Bruce Roe
> > 
> > 17 Sep 2004 "Trade 2000" <travelchile@manquehue.net> writes:
> > > On the Olds topic now - My TH350C was rebuild, works 
> > > mucho better, but there is a big gap between the 2-3 

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

Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 11:31:02 -0400
From: Joe Vahabzadeh <king_v@mindless.com>
Subject: Re: 81 Cutlass Diesel

At 09:22 PM 09/17/2004 -0700, David wrote:
>Bruce,
>
>I sure agree with you that the 200's are not very good transmissions. I also
>thought about the TH400 route, but I don't want to give up any further
>horsepower to transmission losses than I have to. Of course I doubt that I
>would ever have to touch the trans again with a 400. I would like to raise
>the converter lockup on the 200C that I have, and I imagine that I will have
>to replace it sooner rather than later. My other thought as to the 400 was
>that the rear cross member would have to be changed? Did you do this with
>your Cutlass? Or would it be possible to use the later 200R4 cross member?
>How did you hook up the switch pitch to your Cutlass? Manual or automatic
>switch?
>
At 12:28 AM 09/18/2004 -0500, Bruce wrote:
>Why does everybody think a 400 has horsepower losses? 
>With a switch pitch (diesel really needs) the car will be a 
>lot faster, for the same axle ratio.  To fully utilize a 4 speed 
>auto, you need to change the axle. 
>


Well, I understand that the TH400 *does* have more of a horsepower loss
than the TH350.  Not very much, certainly less than was popularly believed,
but maybe at most a 5hp difference from what I've gathered from the list.

Though that might be significant given the fact that the engine only
produces 105 horsepower net.

However, the torque, while really low end, isn't an incredibly high amount
(I wonder if I've got a typo in my tables), but does the diesel 350 produce
only 205 ft-lbs?

Anyway, I'm thinking that the TH350 would be the "quick and easy" solution.
 Doesn't require any mucking around with the crossmember... just have to
run a vacuum line to the modulator.  I think otherwise it's almost a direct
bolt-in swap?

I definitely agree with Bruce though that the overdrive will need a better
set of rear gears, otherwise you might as well just never use the OD . . .
depending on what rear the car's got . . but given that it's likely, as
mentioned, 2.29 or 2.41 or thereabouts, you won't really need the overdrive
unless you get higher rear gears, or are routinely doing 80+ MPH.


Anyway, going quick easy and cheap, the TH350 seems that it should be far
more than sufficient given the power produced by the diesel motor.  Going
TH400 or TH200-4R requires getting a different crossmember.


	- Joe Vahabzadeh

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

Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 11:57:04 -0400
From: "Christopher Witt" <rocketscience442@hotmail.com>
Subject: 50 + 50 != 100

What you say is true. However, if you're traveling 50mph and hit another
vehicle doing the same speed head on, nothing is going to save you. Air 
bags,
crumple zones, nothing will protect you at 100mph collision.
Bruce
==================
uhm, let's iron that out
50 plus 50 does not equal 100 mph. It does not work that way
We went thru this on the list a year or 3 ago.

To the occupants of a given car, assuming the vehicles have identical [or 
nearly so] mass, a head-on with both going 50 results in each decellerating 
from 50 to 0 in the amount of time the crash takes to occur. That's where 
crumple zones help, too, spreading the decelleration over longer time.

Anyhow, that is VERY, VERY different from a single car going 100 mph to 0 by 
crashing into the immovable object: Bridge abutment, House-sized bulldozer, 
etc.

Look at the severity of the crash as the amount of energy that must be 
dissipated.
That energy is quite simple: K. E. = 1/2 M V^2

One "Universal Identical Vehicle" going 50: 1250 x M
Two UIV's both going 50: 2500  x M

One UIV going 100: 5000 x M

One car going twice as fast bears TWICE the kinetic energy of two cars at 
the lower speed.

Of course, two cars going at 100 is merely twice that of the one car, or 
10,000 x M.

Anyhow, you cannot simply "add speeds" in a crash scenario and get any 
meaningful result.

furthermore, since mass of vehicles DOES vary.... mass wins. Everyone is 
familiar with the swinging balls toy. Two swing in, two swing out. Man, this 
sounds dirty. But, I digress. The basic effect is that the more massive unit 
will be less severely affected by the forces acting upon it. That is, 
inertia matters.

Assume two vehicles, the Asura weighs half that of the Buford. They meet 
head-on, each from the same speed. The net result is NOT a stopping of both 
at the point of impact. The more massive vehicle will shove the smaller one 
backwards. Net result: the occupants of the more massive vehicle experience 
a decelleration from speed S to oh say 10mph before the crash is "over" for 
all purposes. Whereas, the Jap^H^H^H Asura occupants must decellerate from S 
to >>-10<< mph, that's 10 assume mph in the OTHER DIRECTION. Crumple zones, 
or not, that's gotta hurt more.
- ----------------------
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

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

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

Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 09:53:22 -0700
From: Greg Tjosvold <tjosvold@polar7.com>
Subject: Diesel Questions - Was Re: 81 Cutlass

 >the it has the pep of a regular car in town,
 >still can hit 30 mpg even without the lockup converter

Bruce and Other Diesel Owners,

Any idea what kind of HP/torque the engine has? How easy was it to service? 
Are parts still available? Did it have mechanical or EFI?

I'm still humming and hawing about what motor to put in our 1958 custom 
wagon. The basic objective is to create a unique long haul vehicle for my 
son's band using mostly Olds parts that can be serviced in smaller cities 
on tour. I'm leaning towards putting in a 455, but a diesel might have some 
interesting advantages (especially if we installed a "grease car" option 
[http://www.greasecar.com/]). However, I've yet to hear from anyone that 
actually likes their Olds diesel. :-(

Thoughts?

Sincerely,

Nanook
http://www.car-diaries.com/blogs/

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

Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 14:40:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Jim Donoghue" <jim@smithy.com>
Subject: Re: Diesel Questions - Was Re: 81 Cutlass

>
> Bruce and Other Diesel Owners,
>
> Any idea what kind of HP/torque the engine has? How easy was it to
> service?  Are parts still available? Did it have mechanical or EFI?
>
> I'm still humming and hawing about what motor to put in our 1958 custom
> wagon. The basic objective is to create a unique long haul vehicle for
> my  son's band using mostly Olds parts that can be serviced in smaller
> cities  on tour. I'm leaning towards putting in a 455, but a diesel
> might have some  interesting advantages (especially if we installed a
> "grease car" option  [http://www.greasecar.com/]). However, I've yet to
> hear from anyone that  actually likes their Olds diesel. :-(
>
>

I had quite a few Olds diesels, they were great cars, some parts are a
little tough to find. The big problem is if you have to take it to a shop
for service - most places won't touch them. A diesel truck repair center
would be the place to go.

105HP/150 ft-lbs torque (I think). Not particularly fast, but it will
cruise all day long at 70MPH and still get really good fuel mileage.

If you keep the oil and filters changed, never let it overheat, and treat
it with respect, the Olds diesel will last quite a long time.

The fuel system is a Stanadyne rotary injection pump (similar to what's on
the GMC/Chev. 6.2L engine) feeding eight poppet-type injectors. How easy
to service? Not much different than any other Olds V-8.

Jim

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

Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:29:23 EDT
From: KS7RACING@aol.com
Subject: 1959 Dynamic 88 Value??????

Listmembers,

This gentleman needs an idea as to how much this car is worth.  I don't have 
an idea where to begin with one of these older Oldsmobiles and I was hoping 
someone on here could assist.

If you can, please contact Roy at:
royharris@classicnet.net
or at the phone number listed below.

Thanks, and Take Care!
SrA Ken Snyder
Kansas City, Kansas

P.S.: Roy -- sorry I didn't get this posted sooner :-(

In a message dated 9/10/04 9:45:09 PM Central Daylight Time, KCOldsClub 
writes:
- -- Hi-
I am writing in regards to the value of a 1959 2 door Dynamic 88 Oldsmobile 
with a ID #597K10592.  My father passed away recently and has this car blocked 
up in one of his buildings.  There are two people locally interested in 
purchasing the car but I do not know a fair price to ask and I am looking for 
assistance in this area.  The car has not ran for sometime but the body is in good 
shape and has been under cover.  Thank you in advance for any help you could 
provide in this area.
Sincerely
Roy Harris
220 W. Lincoln 
Clay Center, Ks. 67432
785-632-6470 --

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

Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:37:23 -0400
From: "M. Gillespie" <mick442@rogers.com>
Subject: HEI too Big!!!

I finally got the new 425 for my 69 vert running today but still have 
problems. I bought an Offenhauser 360 intake for this engine and found the 
HEI won't fit. Using my die grinder, I took about .030" off the distributor 
housing and a little bit off the intake. This let me install the HEI but 
adjustments are limited.
With the dist. turned as far as it will go, I've got a total advance of 20 
deg. whereas I want 35. Needless to say, it runs pretty rough. Rather than 
going back to a stock distributor or an expensive aftermarket, I would still 
like to use my HEI.
I'm thinking if I advance the gear one more tooth I might have enough 
movement to swing the dist. in the retard direction enough to get my 35 deg.
Does anyone know off the top of your head how many teeth are on an HEI gear. 
That way I can figure out whether or not it will work before hand.
Also found that my shifter linkage won't stay in the "U" bracket slot on the 
side of the TH350. I'm thinking there must be a retaining clip that holds 
the linkage in the bracket. It's not unknown for me to forget about things 
like that. Does anyone know if there is a clip.

Mick Gillespie
1969 442 Conv. (clone)
1980 Toro
http://members.rogers.com/mick442/oldspage.htm 

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

Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 14:30:50 -0700
From: "David Manly" <dmanlyr@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Diesel Questions - Was Re: 81 Cutlass

Hey,

Well here is a Olds diesel fan, although I do realize the short comings.
They will and can/do run for a lot of miles, I have had one that went over
200k without a mechanical problem, but then I have seen other's that can't
even get to 10k without problems.

So what are these engines? Well, #1 is that they are not and never were
converted gas engines. None of the major items (even the valve covers are
not the same!) were ever used in a gas engine. However, that said, they were
designed to be built on the same assy line as the gas engines, and fit in
the engine compartment with the same accessory fit as the gas engines. Hence
they "look" alot alike.  Another thing these engine are not and were never
designed to be was a heavy duty diesel, IE running 300/500k before the first
major. They were designed to give a comparable life span to a gas engine
while returning a higher fuel mileage figure. Unfortunately people love to
stereo type things and we had salesmen saying things like ~ "just like that
big truck diesel, these Olds diesels will last forever, IE 250 - 500k
without needing anything!" HAH! Second point, it was only a approx $400/500
option at the time, and even the most ignorant person should have realized
that just does not buy much diesel.

The first engines were the "D" block, short main bearing bolts and flat
tappet cam. Along with head bolt breakage/stretching and main bearing bolts
pulling out of the block due to the short threaded engagement the cams also
had a reputation of failing, although this was traced to the quality of the
lube oil and not really a "cam" problem per say. NO water separator
installed from the factory.  These engines have 125 rated HP from the
factory

All of the 1981 (some late 1980 models also) and later cars featured the
"DX" block, with the deeper pocketed main bearing bolts and a roller cam.
There was and has been since a couple of changes in the head bolt and head
gasket design. 1981 models also had a water separator installed in the fuel
tank. These engines were rated at 105 HP from the factory.  I personally
have never nor do I plan on owning a pre 81' model, although they are good
for some parts.

1982 and later models have a changed precup notch / piston design, and are
much quieter with a decrease in smoke. A tip I can give you is if you want
to push the envelope a bit, use the earlier style pistons with the later
heads for a small bump in the compression ratio without decking the block or
milling the heads. It does increase the power and the noise though! Whenever
servicing the heads, always replace the head bolts as they are one time use
only.

1985 brought a rudimentary computer control to the engine. Then it was over.

There were other changes over the years, but these are the major.

There is also a 4.3 liter (up to 1980) version of the 5.7 and there is a
improved 4.3 liter V-6 from 1982 to 1985 featuring two similar but different
engines, a FWD version with the Aluminum heads and small TH125C bell housing
bolt pattern and a RWD version with cast iron heads and the standard BOP
bolt pattern. They also have two extra head bolts per cylinder and never
suffered from the head gasket failures as the V-8's, but like the 403 Olds,
they have hollow main bearing webs, so there were lower end failures. These
are a sweet engine in the Cutlass Cierra FWD

Now, if I was towing, I think a great conversion would be to drop a NON
turbo 6.2/6.5 in place of the 5.7. The factory turbo interferes with the
heater / air cond box on the passenger side. BUT remember, the early 6.2's
quite a few problems also, and there were a lot of people that had as much
problems with the jimmy (detroit) than the Olds diesel.

My two cents, I could probably write a book on these and other "failures"
like the Vega engine ~ It used the same cylinder bore manufacturing as the
famous McLaren 427 aluminum V-8! A tidbit, GM had to tin plate the pistons
in the Vega to keep from wearing the skirts out. The aluminum block was
tough as nails ~ BUT not capable of tolerating even the slightest
overheating.

David
- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Greg Tjosvold" <tjosvold@polar7.com>
To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 9:53 AM
Subject: Diesel Questions - Was Re: 81 Cutlass


> >the it has the pep of a regular car in town,
>  >still can hit 30 mpg even without the lockup converter
>
> Bruce and Other Diesel Owners,
>
> Any idea what kind of HP/torque the engine has? How easy was it to
service?
> Are parts still available? Did it have mechanical or EFI?
>
> I'm still humming and hawing about what motor to put in our 1958 custom
> wagon. The basic objective is to create a unique long haul vehicle for my
> son's band using mostly Olds parts that can be serviced in smaller cities
> on tour. I'm leaning towards putting in a 455, but a diesel might have
some
> interesting advantages (especially if we installed a "grease car" option
> [http://www.greasecar.com/]). However, I've yet to hear from anyone that
> actually likes their Olds diesel. :-(
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Nanook
> http://www.car-diaries.com/blogs/
>
>
>
>

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

End of oldsmobile-digest V1 #5026
*********************************
