To:	oldsmobile-digest @ chebucto.ns.ca @ INTERNET
cc:	 
Subject:	oldsmobile-digest V1 #604


oldsmobile-digest         Thursday, 10 April 1997      Volume 01 : Number 604

Re: MSDs, Current, and Voltage  Was: no subject whatsoever
Re: Worst Loss?
Re: headers, gaskets and such...
Re: a lot of blown engines
Re: heads for sale (update)(update)
Need Disc Brake Valve
lets get technical
Darwin Award/JATO idiot (Funny, somewhat long)
Re: MSDs, Current, and Voltage  Was: no subject whatsoever
Re: Worst Loss?, best buy?
Re: a lot of blown engines
Re: lets get technical
swap meet
Re: (no subject)
For sale: 87 woodgrain console plate
Re: lets get technical
Re: junkyards (fwd)
Blowing My Own Horn
1967 442
Re[?]: MSDs, Current, and Voltage
Re[2]: Guess what I found out?
Re:Guess what I found out?
RE: Olds 307
1950s Technical Bulletins For Sale (4/10)
Re: 1967 442
Re: Rocker questions
Re: MSDs, Current, and Voltage  Was: no subject wh
Re: lets get technical
Engine IDs - What do I have?
Re: Re[?]: MSDs, Current, and Voltage
Re: Worst Loss?, best buy?
Re: MSDs, Current, and Voltage  Was: no subject wh
Re: Worst Loss?, best buy?
Re: Engine IDs - What do I have?
Re: Engine IDs - What do I have?
Re: Worst Loss?, best buy?
Engine IDs - What do I have?
FW: Re[?]: MSDs, Current, and Voltage

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

From: grpruett@vt.edu (Greg Pruett)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 14:36:48 -0300
Subject: Re: MSDs, Current, and Voltage  Was: no subject whatsoever

>And as here I go again, as I actually feel I do have at least a limited
>grasp of Ohms Law.

By now I think you do too(you've seen it maybe 4 times just in this thread
:) ) I'm just trying to apply it to show that an increase in voltage will
cause an increase in amperage, all other variables being the same.

> I see where you are going, and I think you are equating
>apples and oranges.

No, i'm trying to equate voltage with amperage and their direct
relationship.  I think you'll agree that according to the equation I=E/R,
amperage is a function of voltage and resistance.  So when you increase
voltage to a component without changing the resistance of the component the
component will draw more amperage.

>If you have a 1 hp electric motor, and it is run on
>110vac, at full load it will draw 746watts = 110v x 6.8amps.  If you run it
>at 220vac, then it will draw 220v x 3.4 amps, in each case = to 1 hp.  The
>reduced amperage will allow for reduced wire size.

Your example is correct.  An electric motor will draw proportionetly (sp?)
less amperage for a given power output when you're running more voltage.
But most ACmotors i've seen have seperate circuits for 110v and 220 volts.
When you run 220 volts to your 1 hp motor you are running on a different
circuit with greater resistance than the 110 circuit.  If you were to run
more than 110 volts to the 110 volt input of an AC motor, you would see an
increase in amperage and a subsequent increase in power output (wattage).
Mechanically, the motor would be able to produce more torque.  But electric
motors aren't the best example to use when discussing basic theory like we
are.  The resistance of a motor varies depending on many things.  The RPM
it's spinning, load, and a few other variables.

>I think you are detaching work = watts from your discussion.

I don't thnk I was detatching work from watts.  It takes work to create the
heat in my heater example. And I agree work = watts.

<SNIP>
>>Amperage will toast wires long before voltage ever will.
>
>This line is exactly my point.  The ORIGINAL post to this thread said that
>the HEI distributor required a bigger wire because the voltage was greater.

And I meant that an increase in voltage will in turn cause an increase in
amperage since amperage is a function of voltage.  If you raise voltage you
can yield the same wattage and draw less current but the resistance has to
increase as well.  Otherwise you will have a greater current draw, and an
increase in power output as well.

>At a given load which to me means watts or hp if I'm wrong here I'll stop:

Well technically, resistance is considered load when it comes to
electricity.  Watts is more a unit of output.

>
>1. if you increase the voltage the amperage drops, and you may use smaller
wire.
>
>2. if you decrease the voltage the amperage increases and larger wire is
>required.

If you want x watts of output, be it mechanical, heat, light, whatever,
then you can increase voltage and
you will require less amperage to produce x watts of output.  But if you
don't increase resistance of a component in conjunction with increasing
voltage applied to it you will draw more amperage.

>>>  And the original post said that the wire size must be
>>>increased because of increased voltage, if you think that is the case then
>>>YOU better keep your day job!
>>
>>Uh, I think electronic type stuff *is* Mike's day job.  And no he probably
>>shouldn't quit.
>
>I'm not really suggesting that he should......(etc)

Sorry 'bout that I was trying to be funny too.  It obvisouly didn't come
across that way.  Actually, it seemed much funnier when I typed it.  And I
admire you for being able to retire at 43.  I hope i'm retired by at least
that age.  It must be nice to be able to devote all your time to your own
ambitions and not worry about making a living.

>No... It made more a lot more sense without your Ohms paragraph, which I did
>not find to be quite to the subject at hand; one of those close but no
>cigars kind.

Did I do any better this time?

I'll discuss the topic further if you like.  If you're sick of it just say
so, and I'll drop it.

Greg Pruett
`72 Vista-Cruiser
`67 Cutlass Supreme

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

From: theogns <theogns@avana.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 23:11:23 -0300
Subject: Re: Worst Loss?

> Come to find out, the intake and heads were typical 1976.  The block,
> was a 68, forged crank, forged rods, forged pistons, 4 Bolt Mains.  Was
> this a W30 that I GAVE away?!?  I could just kill myself when he told
> me.  They guy who got it just had to rub it in!
>
> Oh well.  I lost out on that one!!!!
>
> Thomas Martin
> 85 Cutlass 307

It was a large car (98/88/Toro) 455 and NOT a W-30 engine. The forged
crank was actually almost typical for '68. The 4 bolt mains were a
fabrication or an exageration since Olds never had a 4 bolt main. The
only way it could have been a W-30 is if it was a Hurst/Olds engine.
This has caused a lot of misunderstanding. The 4-4-2 W-30 of 1968 was a
400 cubic inch and the Hurst/Olds had a W-30 455. W-30 simply denotes
forced air induction. If this was a Hurst/Olds engine, the real goodies
had already left the scene(ie heads). The forged crank was the only
thing special that got away.

Danny

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

From: theogns <theogns@avana.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 23:24:22 -0300
Subject: Re: headers, gaskets and such...

First off, what gaskets etc.
> do I need exactly?  Anybody have any brand preferences that they would
> like me stick by?  Money IS an object, but I'd like good quality and am
> willing to pay a little bit for it.  That, and it's HARD to manouver
> headers in a G-body on a 350, so I want the gaskets etc. to last as long
> as possible.  I'm having the pipe custom bent, and using flowmaster
> mufflers...  Hoping for a quick response on this...

The best I've found are NAPA Nitroseal.

Danny

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

From: theogns <theogns@avana.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 23:30:51 -0300
Subject: Re: a lot of blown engines

Tom Lentz wrote:
>
>      The message that I got from all the blown engine stories was "Don't
>      use a high volume oil pump without the restrictors!"  I think it was a
>      good point and I'm glad to have it reinforced (for my good too!).  I
>      think we're all tempted by the "bigger is better" philosophy when
>      rebuilding engines and opt for the high volume pump just 'cause we
>      can.
>
Also, I think everyone should be aware of the disadvantages of a hi
volume oil pump. In theory they use more power and wear out distributor
shafts quicker. And let's face it, oil pumps are not a performance item
like a air filter that can be replaced easily if you decide you don't
like it. Oil management is a major concern with these engines


Danny

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

From: kozhill@titanlink.com (Jo-Anne Hillier)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 01:07:51 -0300
Subject: Re: heads for sale (update)(update)

Darren;  Good point!

Scott
kozhill@titanlink.com

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

From: Jeff Stanish <stanishj@svpal.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 01:41:26 -0300
Subject: Need Disc Brake Valve

Does anyone have or know where to find a '69 A Body disc brake
metering valve Part ª 3905525 either NOS or
replacement that  looks original stock.

If I can't find one, any idea on how to rebuild my old one, or just bead
blast it and put it back on?

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

From: kozhill@titanlink.com (Jo-Anne Hillier)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 01:44:13 -0300
Subject: lets get technical

OK boys, I been reading this mail to learn. How about some high tech info
in how to get more ponies out of these olds blocks. Which cam works best on
small blocks, big block. Carb mods. Intakes,which work best? How can you
modify stock manifolds? Exhaust manifolds? Blue printing tips? Oil pumps,
what kind of pressure,volume? Carb cfm? How about jets mettering rods for
the old Q-jet?Which heads work on a small block, big block the best using
90-92 octain fuel? Ever try K&N air filters? Opinions on synthetic oils?
Timming specs. Distributor curves? Ever try the new hot spark plugs from
Split fire, Delco, Bosch?
How about fuel mileage? Electric fans?Lets get some opinions going!
Scott
kozhill@titanlink.com

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

From: CRuper1@aol.com
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 01:57:57 -0300
Subject: Darwin Award/JATO idiot (Funny, somewhat long)

Remember the JATO discussion we had a while back describing some idiot who
"strapped" a jet engine to his car, and implanted himself in the side of a
cliff?  Here's one that's even better.  This has gotta be one of those types
of guys who would rather demo derby a clean W-30, than take your plain jane
in better condition in trade for his (Olds. content).  Enjoy!


This should brighten your day and remind you of just how stupid people
really can be.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----- --------------------------------------
We finally have a winner, but I think he should be disqualified since
this guy didn't die!

   You'll recall a Darwin Award winner not long ago where a  former Air
Force sergeant decided to strap a cargo plane
 rocket booster to his car to see how fast it would go and ended up
killing himself (hence the "Darwin" award...in the
 struggle for survival only the fittest survive....) when his car didn't
negotiate a curve in on the road in northern  New Mexico where he had
set up this experiment.  The car smashed into the side of a cliff
several hundred feet above the roadbed.


   Here's the 1997 winner:  Larry Waters of Los Angeles.
 Larry is one of the few to win the award and still be alive.


   Larry's boyhood dream was to fly.  When he graduated from high
school, he joined the Air Force in hopes of becoming a pilot.
Unfortunately, poor eyesight disqualified him.  When he was finally
discharged, he had to satisfy himself with
 watching jets fly over his backyard.

   One day, Larry, brightened up.  He decided to fly.  He went to the
local Army-Navy surplus store and purchased 45
 weather balloons and several tanks of helium.  The weather  balloons,
when fully inflated, measured more than four feet
 across.  Back home, Larry securely strapped the balloons to his sturdy
lawn chair.  He anchored the chair to the bumper of his jeep and
inflated the balloons with the helium.  He climbed on for a test while
it was still only a few feet above the ground. Satisfied that it would
work, Larry packed several sandwiches and a six-pack of Miller Lite,
loaded his pellet gun - figuring he could pop a few balloons when it was
time to descend -  and went back to the floating lawnchair where he tied
himself in along with his pellet gun and provisions.  Larry's plan was
to lazily float up to a height of about 30 feet above his back yard
after severing the anchor and in a few hours come back down.

   Things didn't quite work out for Larry.  When he cut the cord
anchoring the lawn chair to his jeep, he didn't float lazily up to 30 or
so feet. Instead  he streaked into the LA sky as if shot from a cannon.
He didn't level of at 30 feet, nor did he level off at 100 feet.  After
climbing and climbing, he leveled off at 11,000 feet.  At that height he
couldn't risk shooting any of the balloons, lest he unbalance the load
and really find himself in trouble.  So he stayed, there, drifting cold
and    frightened for more than 14 hours when he found himself in the
primary approach corridor of LAX.

 A Pan Am pilot first spotted Larry.  He radioed the tower and described
passing a guy in a lawn chair with a gun.  Radar confirmed the existence
of an object floating 11,000 feet above the airport.  LAX emergency
procedures swung into full alert  and a helicopter was dispatched to
investigate.

   LAX is right on the ocean.  Night was falling and the offshore breeze
began to flow.  It carried Larry out to sea.  Right on Larry's heels was
the helicopter.  Several miles out, the helicopter caught up with Larry.
Once the crew determined that Larry was not dangerous, they attempted to
close in for a rescue but the draft from the blades would push Larry
away whenever they neared.  Finally, the helicopter ascended to a
position several hundred feet above Larry and lowered a rescue line.
Larry snagged the line, with which he was hauled back to shore, a
difficult manuver, flawlessly executed by the helicopter crew..

   As soon as Larry was hauled to earth, he was arrested by waiting
members of the LAPD for violating LAX airsapce.  As
 he was led away in handcuffs, a reporter dispatched to cover the daring
rescue, asked him why he had done it.    Larry
 stopped, turned and replied nonchalantly,  "A man can't just sit
around."


   Here's a salute to Larry Walters, the 1997 Darwin Award Winner.

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

From: "John M. Loban" <cyberpsych@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 02:01:35 -0300
Subject: Re: MSDs, Current, and Voltage  Was: no subject whatsoever

My two cents worth on Volts, Amps, and resistance>  A simple way to look
at is to equate it to water in a pipe.  Amps is the water being
delivered and used.  Volts is the push behind the amps forcing them to
be delivered and resistance is the obstacles that have to be overcome to
get there.  Greater resistance uses up voltage.  Thats why your power
company has to use transformers to  bring the voltage back up to  110 V
after leaving the power generating station - resistance uses up
voltage.  This also reminds me that you should remember that your
ignition system will build up exactly and only enough voltage to
overcome the resistance and fire the spark plug.  Probably about 7-12K
at idle.  Each plug, wire, cylinder compression etc. is different so
each will be firing at just the amount of voltage needed to overcome the
resistance and NO MORE.  HEI is capable of 100,000K but will never put
out that much unless the resistance is greatly increased for each
cylinder.  All your aftermarket ignition systems advertise there max
volts - but putting all that pretty stuff on your car is not any
improvement over stock unless you need it because you've added some
resistance above and beyond what the factory designed into the system.
GM slowly  increased the spark plug gap from .030 to .060+  Why?  To get
a longer burn and hotter spark (bigger gap = more resistance = need for
more voltage  which in turn  caused better combustion and less polution
and better gas mileage.
Sorry couldn't stop myself - my twenty years as vocational auto teacher
is showing.

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

From: "Frank Gonzalez" <frank@tridentsound.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 23:07:20 -0300
Subject: Re: Worst Loss?, best buy?

Best buy:Bought a primered 72 Cutlass with 455,tictoc,no hood and no trunk
lid for $250 when I took it home I looked at vin for first time and saw the
X.Backtracked and found former(kid) owner had taken off the ramair
hood,numbers(442 W30!),wing,and trunk lid to try and "restore" car.He got
bad grades and dad sold the car without telling him.He sold me all the
parts for $200!!
Worst loss:Same car had to sell before going to college for tuition money.

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

From: "Frank Gonzalez" <frank@tridentsound.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 02:14:51 -0300
Subject: Re: a lot of blown engines

- ----------
> From: theogns <theogns@avana.net>
> To: oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca
> Subject: Re: a lot of blown engines
> Date: Wednesday, April 09, 1997 10:30 PM
> Also, I think everyone should be aware of the disadvantages of a hi
> volume oil pump. In theory they use more power and wear out distributor
> shafts quicker. And let's face it, oil pumps are not a performance item
> like a air filter that can be replaced easily if you decide you don't
> like it. Oil management is a major concern with these engines
>
>
> Danny
>

So on a normal (ex:71 w30 455)rebuild which is better ,a stock pump or a
high volume pump?
Frank

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

From: "John M. Loban" <cyberpsych@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 02:27:13 -0300
Subject: Re: lets get technical

synthetic oils -  there main advantage is at temp extremes. Colder and
especially Below zero weather does not effect their flow  capability so
your engine turns over faster and oil is flowing immediately.  This
really cuts down on wear when starting a cold engine.  Ditto temp
extremes - oil keeps its viscosity (cushioning effect between parts) and
minimizes wear.  Also since these are not petroleum based, gas and other
contaminants won't break down the oil.  Theoretically if you could
filter the oil well enough of the suspended contaminants you could use
it a long time.  (you should still change it every 3000 miles to get rid
of these contaminants - my opinon as well as most premium car
manufacturers).  If you have a new car or a rebuilt engine I would use
synthetic.  If you got say over 30,000 miles and don't plan to keep the
car forever changing oil every 3000 miles with a good grade of oil is
probably fine.   Remember - a regular oil that starts out as a 5/30
slowly turns into a single weight over time as contaminants break it
down.  This doesn't happen with synthetic!

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

From: JNelson751@aol.com
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 02:31:10 -0300
Subject: swap meet

has anybody been to the swap meet at knox county fairgrounds at
knoxville,il.?
was it worth going to?

jeff n.
69 442 conv

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

From: "C.R.F." <wizkid@inlink.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 02:52:02 -0300
Subject: Re: (no subject)

At 09:58 PM 4/9/97 -0300, you wrote:
>
>OL>Now you are changing the rules.  The first post suggested a bigger wire
for >OL>an increase in voltage, now you are increasing amperage.  And here
Miss >OL>Fortran and I agree, more amps (at the same voltage) bigger wire,
with the >OL>converse being more voltage (at the same amps) smaller wire. >
>OL>The Wiz > >I apologize! At the end of paragraph I did say "extra voltage"
I meant >more power or what ever the correct term is, like I said at the
>beginning of the paragraph.I NEVER said anything about doubling the >voltage! 
> >
>Daren > >daren@qconline.com > > > > Good boy,

This thread has gone from here to Timbuktu, and back and is going again.  It
is fun while it lasts.

The 'doubling' came about as a reference to amps vs watts.  Your post got
lost about ten iterations ago.

So don't be alarmed, but keep an asbestos suit ready when there are shaky
or, better yet, fault posts.

Some of these things never seem to die.

The Wiz

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

From: MROTHE <MROTHE@prodigy.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 02:48:16 -0300
Subject: For sale: 87 woodgrain console plate

I have run across an item in my closet that I forgot I even had....

A 1987 NOS light woodgrain (not silver) console shifter plate for a
Cutlass/442 (G-body).  It does not have the indicator lens (Pop out your
old one, and glue it in this one.), but includes the clips.  It is
mint.  I will sell it for $25.  Just take your shifter handle off
(remove U-clip on passenger side), remove your old one, install the
indicator lens, and pop in the new one! (If yours has the 3-speed auto,
w/o overdrive, I have an NOS indicator lens for that type)

If interested, let me know

Mike Rothe, mrothe@prodigy.net
71 442
85 442
69 H/O

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

From: "C.R.F." <wizkid@inlink.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 03:20:17 -0300
Subject: Re: lets get technical

At 02:27 AM 4/10/97 -0300, you wrote:
>synthetic oils -  there main advantage is at temp extremes. Colder and
>especially Below zero weather does not effect their flow  capability so
>your engine turns over faster and oil is flowing immediately.  This
>really cuts down on wear when starting a cold engine.  Ditto temp
>extremes - oil keeps its viscosity (cushioning effect between parts) and
>minimizes wear.  Also since these are not petroleum based, gas and other
>contaminants won't break down the oil.  Theoretically if you could
>filter the oil well enough of the suspended contaminants you could use
>it a long time.  (you should still change it every 3000 miles to get rid
>of these contaminants - my opinon as well as most premium car
>manufacturers).  If you have a new car or a rebuilt engine I would use
>synthetic.  If you got say over 30,000 miles and don't plan to keep the
>car forever changing oil every 3000 miles with a good grade of oil is
>probably fine.   Remember - a regular oil that starts out as a 5/30
>slowly turns into a single weight over time as contaminants break it
>down.  This doesn't happen with synthetic!
>

Question: When did they stop making synthetic motor oil out of petroleum?

The Wiz Wonders

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

From: Sixty7442@aol.com
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 06:16:50 -0300
Subject: Re: junkyards (fwd)

In a message dated 97-04-09 15:22:26 EDT, you write:

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

 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
 Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 11:28:25 -0300
 From: Guillermo Santucci <San2cci@msn.com>
 To: oldsmobile-owner@chebucto.ns.ca
 Subject: junkyard >>

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

From: Greg Beaulieu <ab348@chebucto.ns.ca>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 07:11:22 -0300
Subject: Blowing My Own Horn

Months ago I sent a couple of pics of my cars (the same ones on Bryceman's
page) to the My Classic Car web site. I checked back for a few weeks but
they never showed so I forgot about them. But John Loban just told me that
they're up and sure enough they're there <blushes modestly>. I didn't
think I told them the 8-track was originally in the car though...  oh
well, it sounds good anyway! :) A nice change from the usual overdose of
Ch*vys and F*rds that appear there.

This would make a nice project for us... anyone who has scanned images of
their Olds might want to send them to these guys. Check
http://myclassiccar.com and go to their Owner's Gallery link.

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

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

From: Sixty7442@aol.com
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 07:17:26 -0300
Subject: 1967 442

First off, I'd just like to say that the 1967 442 is one of the greatest cars
produced in the history of automobiles. :) Anyway, you folks know of the
slats in the hood, right? Well, I'm not the biggest Olds buff here, but can
it be swapped with another hood without the slats?
Next, who agrees with me that a vinyl top totally ruins the look of the car?
Hard top is the way to go! All for now.

Brendan
(looking for a 67)

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

From: Esko Ilola <esko.ilola@tele.fi>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 06:49:12 -0300
Subject: Re[?]: MSDs, Current, and Voltage

Dear Mike and Wiz,

You have managed to create a long thread out of a simple subject. Cool :)

I think that many of us are wondering, why does the wire burn ?
And why doesn't a ten times as thick wire just burn ten times faster ?

That would be logical, wouldn't it.

I will try to explain some of the terms they used here to make sense in this
thread if You are not so good in electronics. The thread has been VERY
informative yet hard to understand if You are not familiar with the subject.

This is by NO means a professional document. It's only purpose is to tell
everbody how good I'm at this subject...oops...to simplify things to put some
sense in them for those of us that are not familiar with this subject.

Resistance is used to describe how well a conductor can resist current. The
more resistance the better the conductor can resist current. When You
increase resistance You get weaker and weaker current until You finally arrive
to situation when there is virtually no current at all. At this point we
usually talk about insulators. Insulator is just a conductor that has a very
high resistance.

Conductivity is the opposite of resistance. It is used to describe conductors
ability to conduct (:p). It can be said that a good conductor contains a lot
of electrons that do nothing.

Voltage is used to describe how well the electricity can creep over resistors.
The bigger the voltage the bigger resistance is needed to keep the current at
same level. In some sense the Voltage is analogous with the speed of the
electrons.

Amperage is the hardest part. In simply terms it is the volume of electricity.
The more amperes the more electricity. It is also the mass (weight) of the
electrons thus the number of electrons flowing.

Power is a product between Amperage and Voltage. High power means that thare
are lots of electrons flowing at a high speed. If the electrons stay still (No
voltage) there is no power no matter how many electrons are staying still
(High current). If there is high electron speed (High voltage) but only a few
electrons are involved (Low current) there is not much power either.

Work is a product between Power and Time. This is the thing that You pay for.
If You have a huge amount of electrons going very fast (High power) but You
give them no time, then nothing happens. As You gradually increase the
available time, more and more happens (more work is done).

Why do we need a thick wire to those gizmos that consume a lot of current ?
Lot of current means many electrons. If we have a good conductor, the speed
of electrons stays low in the conductor thus causing virtually no power at all
in the conductor itself. All the power is there where it should be. Usually a
thick conductor has more electrons (lower resistance) than a thin one.

If we replace the good conductor with a more resistive one, we get faster
electrons (because there are not so many available in the conductor) thus
causing some power in the conductor itself. Because we usually have limited
supply of either Voltage or Current (speed / amount) the gizmo does no more
receive full power. At here we talk about power loss which is a little bit
misleading as we didn't loose the power, it just isn't where it should be.

The wire burns because there is power in it. If You give it time and if there
is enough power to increase it's temperature, it will burn for sure.

If You put ten wires in parallel that means that You have made ten ways for
the electrons to go. That means in turn that the electron speed inside the
wires has dropped to tenth of the original speed. Not so much power -> no
burning.


Hope this helped.

- --
**********************************************
* Esko Ilola                                 *
* Email esko.ilola@tele.fi                   *
* X400  G=esko S=ilola O=tele A=mailnet C=fi *
* Tel.  +358 2040 3439                       *
*       +358 4055 75977                      *
*       +358 9537 430                        *
* Mail  Ukonkivenpolku 7B5                   *
*       01610 VANTAA                         *
*       FINLAND                              *
**********************************************
* Oldsmobile Ninety Eight 1964               *
*            Holiday Sports Sedan (4D HT)    *
**********************************************

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

From: Esko Ilola <esko.ilola@tele.fi>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 04:11:13 -0300
Subject: Re[2]: Guess what I found out?

The Wiz wrote:

> I'm sorry guys, but this just ain't so.  Those are core support holes, and
> are there so that the foundry can make the casting.  They put in the little
> stamped plugs, and call them freeze plugs: but they do that to fool you.  If
> you freeze the coolant, the little that might come thru the core holes will
> not save the block, or head; the heads have them too.

OK. The "Freeze plugs" were NOT designed to protect Your engine against this
kind of misbehaviour.

The engine is made out of metal, right ? The metal is a good warmth conductor.
This leads to the fact that the ice forms in outside in direction forming a
solid core inside the engine. If this happens, NOTHING can save the poor
engine. Since the ice core inside the engine is virtually leakless, enormous
pressure is formed and the engine gives up.

The scenario changes when You add antifreeze. Even as little as 10 percent of
antifreeze helps a lot. No solid ice is formed but instead a porridge like
stuff. This gives the "freeze plugs" a chance to "operate". Most likely they
are pushed out along with the radiator hoses.

- --
**********************************************
* Esko Ilola                                 *
* Email esko.ilola@tele.fi                   *
* X400  G=esko S=ilola O=tele A=mailnet C=fi *
* Tel.  +358 2040 3439                       *
*       +358 4055 75977                      *
*       +358 9537 430                        *
* Mail  Ukonkivenpolku 7B5                   *
*       01610 VANTAA                         *
*       FINLAND                              *
**********************************************
* Oldsmobile Ninety Eight 1964               *
*            Holiday Sports Sedan (4D HT)    *
**********************************************

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

From: Esko Ilola <esko.ilola@tele.fi>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 03:47:07 -0300
Subject: Re:Guess what I found out?

Eric wrote:

> went from +10 to +15 days, to a whopping snowstorm/-20 weather
> (celcius).  The antifreeze was green on my driveway, apparently not green
> enough.

If You had some (even a little bit) of luck and just enough that antifreeze,
there has happened nothing dramatical. If You have had some antifreeze in,
the mixture tends to go into porridge-like mess if it freezes instead
of building solid ice strong enough to crack caterpillar diesel block (seen
that).

> It only leaked after I started it, and seemed to be drooling out
> by the driver side exhaust manifold, can Heads crack this way and let
> freeze out (Please say yes!)?

Most likely one or more so called freeze plugs have been pushed out. This
happens because the pressure inside the cooling system has rised dramatically.
Even if You have some antifreeze (to build that porridge) the mixture expands.
The porridge glogs thermostat and water pump allowing pressure to raise inside
the engine.

After this kind of accident the radiator and heater core should be checked
(I know You like especially the heater core part) for cracks and leaks. These
components are not designed to survive the pressure.

Hope all You need are the new freeze plugs. They are easy to hammer in.

- --
**********************************************
* Esko Ilola                                 *
* Email esko.ilola@tele.fi                   *
* X400  G=esko S=ilola O=tele A=mailnet C=fi *
* Tel.  +358 2040 3439                       *
*       +358 4055 75977                      *
*       +358 9537 430                        *
* Mail  Ukonkivenpolku 7B5                   *
*       01610 VANTAA                         *
*       FINLAND                              *
**********************************************
* Oldsmobile Ninety Eight 1964               *
*            Holiday Sports Sedan (4D HT)    *
**********************************************

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

From: "Robert G. Ahrens" <AlphaSig@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 08:23:29 -0300
Subject: RE: Olds 307

- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC4581.175E8760
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The only problem I've ever had with my Olds is that the 200C tranny's =
planetary gears went bad after 140,000 miles. Other than that, just the =
minor stuff (water outlet gasket was the latest)

Bob


- ----------
From: Thomas Martin[SMTP:marttj@pcmail1.csg.mot.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 1997 9:36 AM
To: oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca
Subject: Olds 307

For the people who are familliar.  What are the weak points in the Olds
designs and specifically, what are the weak points in the 307's?

I drive this car for reliability (no rice burner can top this Olds!=20
187,750 miles, no major work, hardly any minor work!  Just TLC) and want
to know what to look out for.

Thanks
Thomas Martin
85 Cutlass 307



- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC4581.175E8760
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC4581.175E8760--

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

From: "Thomas G. Stoner" <tgstoner@umich.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 08:40:51 -0300
Subject: 1950s Technical Bulletins For Sale (4/10)

I have the following Oldsmobile related item which I would like to sell:

A group of miscellaneous Oldsmobile Dealer Technical Information
Bulletins from the 1950s:

Bulletin Pages Title

54-W-28A   1   Slip Yoke Disengagement from Rear Oil Seal (Syncro-Mesh)
54-W-55    3   Introduction of a Revised Application for Adjustment Form
                    and Dealer Instructions for Handling
1956       2   Pages 3 and 4 of the 1956 Dealer Technical Information
                    Bulletin Index
1958       5   Pages 1 thru 5 of the 1958 Dealer Technical Information
                    Bulletin Index
58-W-1     4   Oldsmobile Division Policies on Dealer Adjustments,
                    Effective November 1, 1957
58-W-40    8   Revision of Application for Adjustment Form 726-Olds
58-W-70    1   Second Type Jetaway Rear Clutch Plates
1959       8   Three different copies of Page 1; Pages 2 and 3, and
three
                    blank pages of the 1959 Dealer Technical Information
                    Bulletin Index
59-W-1     4   Oldsmobile Division Policies on Dealer Adjustments,
                    Effective November 1, 1958

36 pages total of vintage Oldsmobile Technical Bulletins, shipped via
Priority Mail to any address in the United States for $10.00. (4/10/97)

Notify me directly at tgstoner@umich.edu if you would like to purchase
this package of items or if you would like additional information about
them.  Thank you.

          ===
+======= | | | = Tom Stoner =======================+
|        | | |   OCA ª3943                         |
|        |/|\|   Ann Arbor, Michigan               |
|        | | |   1979 Hurst/Olds (It's for sale!)  |
|         ===    tgstoner@umich.edu                |
+==================================================+

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

From: tchurchill@draper.com (Timothy A. Churchill)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 09:10:48 -0300
Subject: Re: 1967 442

Brendan writes:

> First off, I'd just like to say that the 1967 442 is one of the greatest
cars > produced in the history of automobiles. :)

No argument here... with the 67 Cutlass Supreme a close second :) :)

> Anyway, you folks know of the
> slats in the hood, right? Well, I'm not the biggest Olds buff here, but can
> it be swapped with another hood without the slats?

Yes, it should drop right in.

> Next, who agrees with me that a vinyl top totally ruins the look of the car?

Yes, except when the vinyl comprises a CONVERTIBLE top :)

> Hard top is the way to go!

Not necessarily (see above)

> All for now.

Same here

> Brendan
> (looking for a 67)



Tim (Got His 67, Looking For -- And Maybe Found -- a 455) Churchill
- -------------
'67 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Convertible, a.k.a. 'Big Red'
'89 Cadillac Fleetwood, a.k.a. 'Der KinderWagen'
'91 Mazda Protege, a.k.a. 'The Next Car to be Replaced'

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

From: r_mullen@Merck.Com (R Mullen)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 09:23:00 -0300
Subject: Re: Rocker questions

>Thanks for all your input.  I did check with Summit on their Comp Cams
>roller rocker kit - 1442-KIT.  It sells for $248.  The major problem with it
>is that the screw in studs it comes with are 7/16 studs, larger than the
>stock 3/8 holes, thus head removal and machining is required.

Todd,
The stock stud hole in the head is 5/16".  Mondello's SAR455 (not sure
if that is still the cat. number), which I installed on my '70 442's
orig. 455, came with studs that were 5/16 on the part that screwed into
the head and 3/8" for the poly locks that retained the rockers.  This
kit had Comp. Cams roller tip rockers and guideplates.  I have heard
that the whole thing is available through Jegs' catalog.  The 5/16" /
3/8" studs are sold (I think) through Summit as part of their SB Ford
conversion kit.  Either that or you can buy just the studs from
Mondello.

FWIW, I unknowingly overtightened one of the rockers and it seized while
I was wringing out the car on a country road.  Sounded like I had
floated a valve.  A removal of the valve cover revealed a broken guide
plate and a chrome moly push rod that had to be removed with Vice Grips.
 The stud and rocker arm were fine.  If I have time, some day I'll
convert over to regular 3/8" studs.  For now, the 5/16" /  3/8" hybrid
studs work fine.
Scott Mullen
'70 442

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

From: Daren@qconline.com
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 08:59:00 -0300
Subject: Re: MSDs, Current, and Voltage  Was: no subject wh

OL>GM slowly  increased the spark plug gap from .030 to .060+  Why?  To get
OL>a longer burn and hotter spark (bigger gap = more resistance = need for
OL>more voltage  which in turn  caused better combustion and less polution
OL>and better gas mileage.
OL>Sorry couldn't stop myself - my twenty years as vocational auto teacher
OL>is showing.

If this is so then why on the '82 Cutlass with a 3.8 v6 that I use to
have did I see an improvement in power and gas mileage after I dropped
the gap from .080 or .060 down to .035. It picked up almost 2 mpg and
would spin the tires on smooth black top which it wouldn't do with the
stock gap.I agree that you need the hottest spark you can get and either
enough duration or multiple sparks to get the most complete burn
possible.

Daren

daren@qconline.com

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

From: Daren@qconline.com
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 09:14:22 -0300
Subject: Re: lets get technical

OL>>Also since these are not petroleum based, gas and other
OL>>contaminants won't break down the oil.  Theoretically if you could
OL>>filter the oil well enough of the suspended contaminants you could use
OL>>it a long time.  (you should still change it every 3000 miles to get rid
OL>>of these contaminants - my opinon as well as most premium car
OL>>manufacturers).  If you have a new car or a rebuilt engine I would use
OL>>synthetic.  If you got say over 30,000 miles and don't plan to keep the
OL>>car forever changing oil every 3000 miles with a good grade of oil is
OL>>probably fine.   Remember - a regular oil that starts out as a 5/30
OL>>slowly turns into a single weight over time as contaminants break it
OL>>down.  This doesn't happen with synthetic!
OL>>

OL>Question: When did they stop making synthetic motor oil out of petroleum?

OL>The Wiz Wonders

True synthetic oils I thought were always petroleum free.
Just the synthetic blends use petroleum. Like Duro-blend?


Daren

daren@qconline.com

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

From: Darrin Johnson <xdarrinj@dpcmail.itg.ti.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 12:27:52 -0300
Subject: Engine IDs - What do I have?

I have recently purchased a 1972 Cutlass Supreme Convertible to restore and I
need help determining what engine I have.  The numbers on the block are 395558
(I can't tell from the Olds FAQ what this is - it looks like a 68-70 350, 330
or 76-81 260).  The numbers on the heads are 8 411 929 (73-76 350 smog
heads?). The numbers on the intake manifold are 411990 and D4BC.  I can't find
any reference to this intake manifold. The manifold also has an EGR valve on
it. What exactly do I have?  Could this be a factory combination for 1972?

I also need a source for a vacuum hose routing diagram.


Darrin Johnson
1972 Cutlass Supreme Convertible

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

From: MROTHE <MROTHE@prodigy.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:43:00 -0300
Subject: Re: Re[?]: MSDs, Current, and Voltage

Esko Ilola wrote:
>
> Dear Mike and Wiz,
>
> You have managed to create a long thread out of a simple subject. Cool :)
>
> I think that many of us are wondering, why does the wire burn ?
> And why doesn't a ten times as thick wire just burn ten times faster ?
>
> That would be logical, wouldn't it.
>
> I will try to explain some of the terms they used here to make sense in this
thread > if You are not so good in electronics. The thread has been VERY
informative yet > hard to understand if You are not familiar with the subject. 
>
 > This is by NO means a professional document. It's only purpose is to tell
everbody > how good I'm at this subject...oops...to simplify things to put
some sense in them > for those of us that are not familiar with this subject. >
 > Resistance is used to describe how well a conductor can resist current.
The more > resistance the better the conductor can resist current. When You
increase resistance > You get weaker and weaker current until You finally
arrive to situation when there is > virtually no current at all. At this point
we usually talk about insulators. > Insulator is just a conductor that has a
very high resistance. > > Conductivity is the opposite of resistance. It is
used to describe conductors > ability to conduct (:p). It can be said that a
good conductor contains a lot of > electrons that do nothing. > > Voltage is
used to describe how well the electricity can creep over resistors. > The
bigger the voltage the bigger resistance is needed to keep the current at >
same level. In some sense the Voltage is analogous with the speed of the
electrons. > > Amperage is the hardest part. In simply terms it is the volume
of electricity. > The more amperes the more electricity. It is also the mass
(weight) of the electrons > thus the number of electrons flowing. > > Power
is a product between Amperage and Voltage. High power means that thare are >
lots of electrons flowing at a high speed. If the electrons stay still (No
voltage) > there is no power no matter how many electrons are staying still
(High current). > If there is high electron speed (High voltage) but only a
few electrons are involved > (Low current) there is not much power either. > >
Work is a product between Power and Time. This is the thing that You pay for. >
If You have a huge amount of electrons going very fast (High power) but You
give > them no time, then nothing happens. As You gradually increase the
available time, > more and more happens (more work is done). > > Why do we
need a thick wire to those gizmos that consume a lot of current ? > Lot of
current means many electrons. If we have a good conductor, the speed > of
electrons stays low in the conductor thus causing virtually no power at all >
in the conductor itself. All the power is there where it should be. Usually a >
thick conductor has more electrons (lower resistance) than a thin one. > > If
we replace the good conductor with a more resistive one, we get faster
electrons > (because there are not so many available in the conductor) thus
causing some > power in the conductor itself. Because we usually have limited
supply of either > Voltage or Current (speed / amount) the gizmo does no more
receive full power. > At here we talk about power loss which is a little bit
misleading as we didn't > loose the power, it just isn't where it should be. >
 > The wire burns because there is power in it. If You give it time and if
there > is enough power to increase it's temperature, it will burn for sure. >
 > If You put ten wires in parallel that means that You have made ten ways
for the > electrons to go. That means in turn that the electron speed inside
the wires has > dropped to tenth of the original speed. Not so much power ->
no burning. > > Hope this helped. > > -- >
********************************************** > * Esko Ilola
* > * Email esko.ilola@tele.fi                   * > * X400  G=esko S=ilola
O=tele A=mailnet C=fi * > * Tel.  +358 2040 3439                       * > *
+358 4055 75977                      * > *       +358 9537 430
* > * Mail  Ukonkivenpolku 7B5                   * > *       01610 VANTAA
* > *       FINLAND                              * >
********************************************** > * Oldsmobile Ninety Eight
1964               * > *            Holiday Sports Sedan (4D HT)    * >
**********************************************


This one I have to get in on.

Power = Amps X Volts
Volts = Amps X Resistance
Substituting the second equation for the volts in the first equation we
get:

Power = Amps X Amps X Resistance, or more commonly referred to as

I(squared)R, where I is amps, and R is resistance.

All conductors give off heat as a result of resistance againt current.
Especially in transformers, where a LOT of conductors are wound
together, each wire giving off its own heat.  This is commonly referred
to as I(squared) R losses, also known as wasted Power.  The lower the
resistance, the less heat.  Since you can't change a wire's inherent
resistance characteristics, if you increase Voltage, you increase
current.  If that happens, your I(squared)R losses increase, so you have
more heat loss.  If the heat generated is very great, such as in using a
too small wire for the load, then it can burn the insulation, and then
possibly get hot enough to melt the metal.  This is exactly what happens
to your fuses under the dash.  Or especially the fusable link.  That's
why a 3A fuse element is thread-like compared to a 25A fuse.  Based on
a  car's voltage system, that is the approximate maximum current that
can be passed through it.

So as for conductor size, in general, when in doubt, max it out.  Just
like fuel line size.  That's why small wire jumper cables (6 GA) get
hotter when you jump start a car with them than a 2 GA size.

Hopefully that is a down and dirty lesson on conductors.

I have to disagree about electrons having mass though.  There is no mass
to an electron.  Hard to believe, but it's true.

My 2 cents
Mike Rothe

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

From: "Chris Sparks (Mr. Ada)" <sparks@aisf.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:46:27 -0300
Subject: Re: Worst Loss?, best buy?

John M. Barnes wrote:
>
> Yorcoy@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > I bought a 1970 cutlass supreme conv. for $65.00 from a sheriff
> > sale, not bad Huh.

> Yep, pretty good. Tell you what, I'll give $75.00 for it. A quick
> 10 bucks, what do you think!?! :)

I'll give $130.00 for it.  Double your money.

Chris Sparks
68 442 (Looking for a topless sister :-)

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

From: Robert Barry <rbarry@sequent1.providence.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:48:19 -0300
Subject: Re: MSDs, Current, and Voltage  Was: no subject wh

At 07:59 AM 4/10/97 -0400, you wrote:
>OL>GM slowly  increased the spark plug gap from .030 to .060+  Why?  To get
>OL>a longer burn and hotter spark (bigger gap = more resistance = need for
[snip]
>If this is so then why on the '82 Cutlass with a 3.8 v6 that I use to
>have did I see an improvement in power and gas mileage after I dropped
>the gap from .080 or .060 down to .035. It picked up almost 2 mpg and
>would spin the tires on smooth black top which it wouldn't do with the
>stock gap.I agree that you need the hottest spark you can get and either
>enough duration or multiple sparks to get the most complete burn
>possible.

Because your car's ignition system wasn't in top shape, and could regulary
fire across a gap of .035", whereas it could only occasionally fire across
the factory spec gap of .080"-.060"?
_______________________________________________________
Dr. Robert Barry  MailTo:RBarry@Sequent1.Providence.Edu
Theology Dept, Providence College, Providence, RI 02918

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

From: Clayton Pierce <zcwp11@Access.ETSU-Tn.Edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 12:04:02 -0300
Subject: Re: Worst Loss?, best buy?

H*ll, I'll trade you a '72 Mercury Marquis Brougham with 429 4bbl. motor
for it.  :-)

Peace, Goodwill, and Happy Oldsmobilling,
Clayton Pierce,
zcwp11@Access.ETSU-Tn.Edu



> > >
> > > I bought a 1970 cutlass supreme conv. for $65.00 from a sheriff
> > > sale, not bad Huh.
>
> > Yep, pretty good. Tell you what, I'll give $75.00 for it. A quick
> > 10 bucks, what do you think!?! :)
>
> I'll give $130.00 for it.  Double your money.
>
> Chris Sparks
> 68 442 (Looking for a topless sister :-)
>
>

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

From: Clayton Pierce <zcwp11@Access.ETSU-Tn.Edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 12:01:11 -0300
Subject: Re: Engine IDs - What do I have?

That would be a post '73 smog 350 it seems.  Evidentally it was swapped
into the car sometime in the past.  If it is the same as a '68, I've got a
chassis manual that might help.  Maybe somebody else has '72 information
though.  As far as your block number goes, my block has the same number as
that and it is a '74 350.  What color valve covers and block does it have.
If they are gold, I'd venture a guess that it might be a '74.  If they are
blue, it would either be a '73 or later than '74 I think.  Please feel
absolutely free to correct me if you don't know what I'm talking about :-)

Peace, Goodwill, and Happy Oldsmobilling,
Clayton Pierce,
zcwp11@Access.ETSU-Tn.Edu
'84 Cutlass Supreme (350, 4bbl. TH375, 70k miles)

On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Darrin Johnson wrote:

> I have recently purchased a 1972 Cutlass Supreme Convertible to restore and
I > need help determining what engine I have.  The numbers on the block are
395558 > (I can't tell from the Olds FAQ what this is - it looks like a 68-70
350, 330 > or 76-81 260).  The numbers on the heads are 8 411 929 (73-76 350
smog heads?). > The numbers on the intake manifold are 411990 and D4BC.  I
can't find any > reference to this intake manifold. The manifold also has an
EGR valve on it. > What exactly do I have?  Could this be a factory
combination for 1972? > > I also need a source for a vacuum hose routing
diagram. > > > Darrin Johnson > 1972 Cutlass Supreme Convertible > > >

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

From: "Chris Sparks (Mr. Ada)" <sparks@aisf.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 11:09:18 -0300
Subject: Re: Engine IDs - What do I have?

Darrin Johnson wrote:

> I also need a source for a vacuum hose routing diagram.

Yeah.  Me too for my 68 442

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

From: "Andrew C. Green" <acg@dlogics.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 11:12:59 -0300
Subject: Re: Worst Loss?, best buy?

This is not an Olds story. Feel free to delete now...

My best buy _has_ to have been my very first car, in 1983: I bought
a 1974 Chevy Vega GT Kammback (wagon) for $50. I still have the Bill
of Sale, which actually has the phrase "believe it or not" on it.

It was a total rustbucket -- the tailgate was so rusted that the latch
had fallen out and it was held closed with a piece of string -- but it
had full gauges, a 4-speed, A/C, and amazingly enough everything worked,
even the clock. And imagine how long it takes a full-strength GM air
conditioning system to chill down a car the size of a Vega? Right:
instant icebox.  :-)

So over the two or three years I had it, I took advantage of the fact
that people were throwing away Vegas like mad, and picked perfect
junkyard replacement parts from a huge selection: a fender for $7, a
tailgate for $15, a door for $25 (after a Chevette backed into it and
I got a $400 settlement). So it got better and better over time, and
shortly before I sold it, I was at a party given by the guy I'd bought
it from, and met the guy that _he'd_ bought it from years before. This
guy's jaw dropped when he saw it; he couldn't _believe_ it was still
on the road. So anyway, I finally sold it to a guy for $650, and I'm
sure it's gone to that big junkyard in the sky by now.

But to this day, I keep a nameplate from the old tailgate on my desk.  :-)

Andrew C. Green                   (312) 853-8331
Datalogics, Inc.
101 N. Wacker Drive, Ste. 1800    Internet: acg@dlogics.com
Chicago, IL  60606-7301           FAX: (312) 853-8282

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

From: Daren@qconline.com
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:14:34 -0300
Subject: Engine IDs - What do I have?

OL>I have recently purchased a 1972 Cutlass Supreme Convertible to restore and
OL>need help determining what engine I have.  The numbers on the block are
3955 OL>(I can't tell from the Olds FAQ what this is - it looks like a 68-70
350, 33 OL>or 76-81 260).  The numbers on the heads are 8 411 929 (73-76 350
smog heads OL>The numbers on the intake manifold are 411990 and D4BC.  I can't
find any OL>reference to this intake manifold. The manifold also has an EGR
valve on it. OL>What exactly do I have?  Could this be a factory combination
for 1972?

OL>I also need a source for a vacuum hose routing diagram.


OL>Darrin Johnson
OL>1972 Cutlass Supreme Convertible

According to my list from Journey with Olds mag.

For the block it doesn't have 3955 but there is a  395558  2 which is
for '68 to '77 350cid blocks.

For the heads 8 411929 is '73-'76  350 cid

I think it might be possible to have '73 heads on a '72 if it was built
late in the year. Have you dug out the build sheets yet. The '72 442 I
use to have had one under the back seat and an identical one under the
carpet under the drivers seat.


Daren

daren@qconline.com

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

From: "Moore, Spencer T." <stmoore@nppd.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 11:24:42 -0300
Subject: FW: Re[?]: MSDs, Current, and Voltage

Sorry to disagree Mike, but it is a little hard to believe that a
electron has no mass.  THAT'S BECAUSE IT DOES.  Not very much,
9.1093897x10^(-31)kg, but it does have mass nonetheless.

Spencer Moore
1969 442 (Olds Content)

>----------
>From: MROTHE[SMTP:MROTHE@prodigy.net]
>Sent: Thursday, April 10, 1997 8:43AM
>To: oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca
>Subject: Re: Re[?]: MSDs, Current, and Voltage
>
>Esko Ilola wrote:
>>
>> Dear Mike and Wiz,
>>
>> You have managed to create a long thread out of a simple subject. Cool :)
>>
>> I think that many of us are wondering, why does the wire burn ?
>> And why doesn't a ten times as thick wire just burn ten times faster ?
>>
>> That would be logical, wouldn't it.
>>
>> I will try to explain some of the terms they used here to make sense in
>>this thread
>> if You are not so good in electronics. The thread has been VERY informative
>>yet
>> hard to understand if You are not familiar with the subject.
>>
>> This is by NO means a professional document. It's only purpose is to tell
>>everbody
>> how good I'm at this subject...oops...to simplify things to put some sense
>>in them
>> for those of us that are not familiar with this subject.
>>
>> Resistance is used to describe how well a conductor can resist current. The
>>more
>> resistance the better the conductor can resist current. When You increase
>>resistance
>> You get weaker and weaker current until You finally arrive to situation
>>when there is
>> virtually no current at all. At this point we usually talk about
>>insulators.
>> Insulator is just a conductor that has a very high resistance.
>>
>> Conductivity is the opposite of resistance. It is used to describe
>>conductors
>> ability to conduct (:p). It can be said that a good conductor contains a
>>lot of
>> electrons that do nothing.
>>
>> Voltage is used to describe how well the electricity can creep over
>>resistors.
>> The bigger the voltage the bigger resistance is needed to keep the current
>>at
>> same level. In some sense the Voltage is analogous with the speed of the
>>electrons.
>>
>> Amperage is the hardest part. In simply terms it is the volume of
>>electricity.
>> The more amperes the more electricity. It is also the mass (weight) of the
>>electrons
>> thus the number of electrons flowing.
>>
>> Power is a product between Amperage and Voltage. High power means that
>>thare are
>> lots of electrons flowing at a high speed. If the electrons stay still (No
>>voltage)
>> there is no power no matter how many electrons are staying still (High
>>current).
>> If there is high electron speed (High voltage) but only a few electrons are
>>involved
>> (Low current) there is not much power either.
>>
>> Work is a product between Power and Time. This is the thing that You pay
>>for.
>> If You have a huge amount of electrons going very fast (High power) but You
>>give
>> them no time, then nothing happens. As You gradually increase the available
>>time,
>> more and more happens (more work is done).
>>
>> Why do we need a thick wire to those gizmos that consume a lot of current ?
>> Lot of current means many electrons. If we have a good conductor, the speed
>> of electrons stays low in the conductor thus causing virtually no power at
>>all
>> in the conductor itself. All the power is there where it should be. Usually
>>a
>> thick conductor has more electrons (lower resistance) than a thin one.
>>
>> If we replace the good conductor with a more resistive one, we get faster
>>electrons
>> (because there are not so many available in the conductor) thus causing
>>some
>> power in the conductor itself. Because we usually have limited supply of
>>either
>> Voltage or Current (speed / amount) the gizmo does no more receive full
>>power.
>> At here we talk about power loss which is a little bit misleading as we
>>didn't
>> loose the power, it just isn't where it should be.
>>
>> The wire burns because there is power in it. If You give it time and if
>>there
>> is enough power to increase it's temperature, it will burn for sure.
>>
>> If You put ten wires in parallel that means that You have made ten ways for
>>the
>> electrons to go. That means in turn that the electron speed inside the
>>wires has
>> dropped to tenth of the original speed. Not so much power -> no burning.
>>
>> Hope this helped.
>>
>> --
>> **********************************************
>> * Esko Ilola                                 *
>> * Email esko.ilola@tele.fi                   *
>> * X400  G=esko S=ilola O=tele A=mailnet C=fi *
>> * Tel.  +358 2040 3439                       *
>> *       +358 4055 75977                      *
>> *       +358 9537 430                        *
>> * Mail  Ukonkivenpolku 7B5                   *
>> *       01610 VANTAA                         *
>> *       FINLAND                              *
>> **********************************************
>> * Oldsmobile Ninety Eight 1964               *
>> *            Holiday Sports Sedan (4D HT)    *
>> **********************************************
>
>
>This one I have to get in on.
>
>Power = Amps X Volts
>Volts = Amps X Resistance
>Substituting the second equation for the volts in the first equation we
>get:
>
>Power = Amps X Amps X Resistance, or more commonly referred to as
>
>I(squared)R, where I is amps, and R is resistance.
>
>All conductors give off heat as a result of resistance againt current.
>Especially in transformers, where a LOT of conductors are wound
>together, each wire giving off its own heat.  This is commonly referred
>to as I(squared) R losses, also known as wasted Power.  The lower the
>resistance, the less heat.  Since you can't change a wire's inherent
>resistance characteristics, if you increase Voltage, you increase
>current.  If that happens, your I(squared)R losses increase, so you have
>more heat loss.  If the heat generated is very great, such as in using a
>too small wire for the load, then it can burn the insulation, and then
>possibly get hot enough to melt the metal.  This is exactly what happens
>to your fuses under the dash.  Or especially the fusable link.  That's
>why a 3A fuse element is thread-like compared to a 25A fuse.  Based on
>a  car's voltage system, that is the approximate maximum current that
>can be passed through it.
>
>So as for conductor size, in general, when in doubt, max it out.  Just
>like fuel line size.  That's why small wire jumper cables (6 GA) get
>hotter when you jump start a car with them than a 2 GA size.
>
>Hopefully that is a down and dirty lesson on conductors.
>
>I have to disagree about electrons having mass though.  There is no mass
>to an electron.  Hard to believe, but it's true.
>
>My 2 cents
>Mike Rothe
>
>

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

End of oldsmobile-digest V1 ª604
********************************
