anyone work at a GM dealer? Recall info?
All, Ok, I'm not entirely sure how to go about this. Having perused the web about recalls, I find that there's three that are listed for the 1995 Buick LeSabre, and they seem pretty darn important. Only thing is that I'm not entirely sure they're full-blown recalls, either. In particular, one, as I found out by poking around the web some, may well require the transmission to be replaced. That one makes me think that, even if my car were covered, I might get a possible "Oh, no, your car doesn't fall into that group" from a local dealership. So, ideally, I'd like to find out in advance. Also, would I be able to find out if my car's already been serviced for a particular recall? Anyway, I'm assuming my VIN number would be needed, so please hit me off-list if someone can do a lookup and let me know whether I have to bring the vehicle in for one of these recalls or not. The issues: 5D26 AUG 95 Recall - Headlamp Aim Pad Number Incorrect 95C04 OCT 94Recall - Lamp Control Module Fails 95C08A NOV 94 Campaign - A/T Defective 2nd Clutch Reaction Plates I'm not real clear (ie: clueless) on what a campaign is versus a recall. - Joe Vahabzadeh
fuel cap - pressure relief or not?
All, Well, the 1989 Royale failed inspection for the fuel cap. Kind of surprising, considering that last inspection, the factory original one still passed - but it broke apart during the summer, so I had to get a new one. Needless to say, the fact that it failed already was kind of startling. Now, I am pretty sure I got it from Autozone, but when I went to their website, I saw two different ones listed. One's part number 6817, the other is 6819. The latter is listed as a "pressure relief vented fuel cap" Which one am I supposed to have on this car? Could it be that I got the pressure relief one when I last purchased it, but wasn't supposed to? Or vice-versa? - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: New Old Car, Toro
At 08:59 PM 12/16/06 -0600, Bruce wrote: >While it already has the 403, big brakes, and big axle, >it will need a couple more things to become my next > "police car" After some maintenance (FIRST: the >timing chain), a switch pitch 400 trans will find its way >in there, anyone want a good BOP THM350? I'd say yes, but I imagine the shipping fees to New Jersey would be brutal! - Joe Vahabzadeh
Caring for a stored engine?
All, Hrm, well, while the 455 has been out of the donor vehicle for about a year now, frankly, it's just been sitting in the corner, under a blanket (keep it nice and cozy, don'cha know!) Ok, I figure maybe I should take some actual serious precautions to make sure to keep the engine in decent shape while it's being stored. I finally hoisted it up and got it on the engine stand (with a claimed weight capacity of 2000 lbs). So, now that it's there, what should I do to make sure things don't start getting funky or otherwise problematic with the motor. So far I've only duct-taped the opening of the intake manifold where the carb would otherwise be, and drained coolant from the block on the passenger side (the driver side simply didn't spit anything out . . . though I've been told that the Oldsmobile Gods will not be pleased until I've had antifreeze spewed on me by BOTH sides of the block!) I know that I should take the drain-plug out of the side of the block and poke around a bit with a screwdriver to get any blocking crud out of the way, so as to fully drain the block. What else should I do? The upper radiator hose is off, so the outlet's just open there. The exhaust manifolds are still on but otherwise not blocked off or anything. I want to make sure that the thing doesn't lock up, get rusty inside, or otherwise do anything that will prove problematic because this may be sitting for a while. Thanks in advance. - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: ADMIN: Attn: AOL Users
At 09:42 PM 11/27/06 -0600, Duane wrote: >Unfortunately the same is true of gmail...the "report spam" button is right next to >the delete button. BUT, once a post is reported as spam, it can easily be reversed >by simply going to the spam folder, selecting the post, and click the "not spam" button. It looks like everyone's got the same bizarre concept. I sometimes check this mail through Comcast's web-interface ([EMAIL PROTECTED] is a redirect to whatever ISP I happen to be using). Well, apparently, Comcast has recently changed their interface - for the annoying. Firstly, I'm used to holding down CTRL then left-clicking to rapidly open multiple messages in new tabs. That doesn't work anymore, but right-clicking and sliding down the menu to select "Open In New Tab" is just fine. I don't know why they went out of their way to disable it partially. Second . . most mail functions are at the top left, but they've decided that Delete will be to the far right - and immediately to the left of Delete is, you guessed it, Report As Spam. I don't know where that was located before, but I do know I never used to have near-misses of clicking that when I mean to delete. So far I've never slipped yet, but the change has been there for only about a month, if that. Ya know, web-design isn't even my strong suit, but I know stupid when I see it. - Joe Vahabzadeh
3800 freeze/core plug revisited
Okay, I think I'm officially stumped. I'm still tempted to go for some sort of stop-leak, but I think I might just try the GM supplement tablets instead of the heavy, nasty Bars Stop Leak. You see, it appears the problem is trying to fix itself. Car overheated (well, ok, the warning light came on, it didn't actually stop running or do anything strange) while my wife, the baby, and her parents took a trip. Coolant system was full when they left, and 300 miles later (about halfway home), the issues started. They'd had to stop a few times to tend to the baby, had done some additiona local driving, etc., so it wasn't just 300 miles total highway driving. Ok, I refill it to drive for short trips, and realizing it's not leaking quite so bad, as well as discovering which core plug is leaking (it's not easy to access). Anywhere from 1 to 3 drips per second, while running... barely leaking when stopped. What the heck . . I take 3 gallons of water with me, and drive it to work last week - mostly highway with some stop and go here and there - 78 miles, about 90 minutes driving, each way. Before leaving work, I added coolant. Topped off after adding about 1 quart. Drove home... and after letting things cool down, again needed to add about 1 quart, maybe a little less. Both times, it piddled a bit on the pavement after shutdown (hey, what can I say, it ain't housebroken!) Drove to work again today - but this time, before leaving, I had to add only about a pint of coolant to top it off. Huh? Not that I'm complaining, mind you, but I didn't think that a leaking core plug, despite looking rock-solid visually, was something that could just sort of start fixing itself (unlike, say, 1970s era Chrysler starter relays, which seem to have recuperative powers). I'm definitely confused. Happy, because, not only does the car seem to be getting better, but I've discovered that it's really a lot more comfortable than the 1988 T-bird Sport for such long commutes. I think the latter might go for sale soon, if the Olds keeps up its good behavior. But I'm still at a loss - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: 3800V6, alum vs plastic intake, VIN?
At 03:49 PM 11/22/06 -0500, Fred wrote: >It is a Series I engine. The Buick LeSabre got the Series II a year >later than Olds and Pontiac. The thermoplastic intake showed up in 1993. >EGR also came back into use that year. (1991 and 1992 3800s met >emission standards without it.) The big issues with the intake gaskets >didn't really show up until 1995 and the Series II engine. There are >aftermarket gaskets that seem to fix the problem permanently. The >warped intakes are usually the result of high temperatures in the EGR >area caused by low coolant thanks to the upper intake gasket leak. Ahh, gotcha! Thanks for the clarification. There's a certain amount of irony in the fact that the big Buick didn't get the newer version of a Buick engine until a year after Olds and Pontiac, no? :) Well, due to the leaky core plug in the Olds, and not knowing if I was going to spend the money it'd take to get that thing fixed (remove trans first?!), I picked up the LeSabre. Wife loves it. It's what the car mags call "grandma-fresh" . . . bought it off a guy, no spring chicken himself, who worked in a senior community, and thus bought it off the original owner. I'm sure he made some money, but hey, he provided a complete Carfax printout along with the car, and for an 11 year old vehicle, being just shy of 58K miles is nothing to sneeze at. But, at least I know that, while buying only the second car I've ever had from the 1990s (the other was a 91 Century a few years back), at least I won't be dealing with the coolant-into-engine issues that the Series II seems to have developed a reputation for. Alas, I wasn't able to find a decent Delta 88 or LSS of similar vintage and mileage. - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: Distributor Assistance Please
At 07:11 AM 11/26/06 -0800, Rodney wrote: >I noticed the wire >from the distributor to the coil was broke off right >where it comes out of the distributor. Since there is >no room to splice it together I looked at the problem >and assessed the situation and come to the conclusion >that I must replace the wire. > >I'm asking the EXPERTS is there an EASY way to replace >the wire WITHOUT tearing down the distributor? I have If I understand the problem correctly, I'm thinking that, worst case, if pulling on the rubber end where the wire attaches to the distributor still winds up leaving a chunk of the wire in the dist, you can do one of two things: 1) Needle-nose pliers, to see if you can get the rest of it out 2) Replace both the distributor cap, and the dist-to-coil wire. Keep track of the various spark plug wires and replace them in the same positions (ask me how I know!) >never taken one apart so I'm at a loss. While and if I >tear it down would it be EASY to replace the point >system with a solid state point less system? > >CAN SOMEONE FIND THE EASY BUTTON FOR ME? I've never used it, but I'm told the Pertronix Ignitor (I think it's the Ignitor II now), is literally a drop-in replacement for the points, and functions like an electronic ignition. - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: Labor for replacing 3800 freeze/core plugs?
Erm, well, yes, but my level of expertise sort of doesn't let that possibility in. At least, not quickly enough to have the car ready to drive by the next day. I've hauled out exactly ONE motor, with a LOT of help (thanks Jim!), and that was from a full-size RWD car. Anyhoo, so far, one dealer said "either 1-1/2 hours, otherwise if it's too tight, 6-7 hours because the trans has to be removed." Another dealer said that their books give conflicting information, so they'd get back to me. Given the age and high mileage of the car, I'm wondering if a leaky freeze/core plug might be taken care of with a bottle of some sort of radiator stop-leak. The car's pretty good as daily driver's go, but I don't like it enough to sink serious money into it. I'd really at most only need it to last about a year at most. As it is, a 78-mile commute, taking about an hour and a half, causes the car to lose only about a quart of coolant - at least at this point in time. I'm sure it'll eventually get worse. - Joe Vahabzadeh At 11:10 PM 11/22/06 -0600, you wrote: >Jerk the engine out, and its easy. > >Bruce Roe > >On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 15:24:14 -0500 Joe Vahabzadeh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >writes: >> All, >> >> Well, it of course had to happen then . . my wife, the baby, and her >> parents took a trip to upstate NY, and on the way back, the Olds, >> for the >> first time, left someone stranded. It overheated. >> >> So, one very long drive to pick them up (fortunately they'd made it >> back >> into NJ before any trouble struck), and one very long tow later >> (just over >> 100 miles!), I've gotten under it to look at the thing. >> >> Slow leak out of one of the core/freeze plugs (which one *is* the >> right >> term, anyway?). Since this is an 89 Olds 88 Royale, 3800 V6, it of >> course >> is one of the two that's on the side of the block facing the >> firewall. I >> can BARELY get my finger in that area between the block and the >> transaxle... so being able to get the old one out is nearly out of >> the >> question. It's dripping about 1-4 drops per second, but is >> otherwise >> REALLY solidly in there. And if I could, while I may be able to get >> one of >> those rubber expansion plug replacements in there, I don't think I >> could >> get a wrench up there to tighten it. >> >> Does anyone have any idea what the standard amount of labor time >> would be >> for replacing that thing on this particular car at a shop, or, worst >> case >> (shudder) at a GM dealership? I'm just wary of getting wildly >> different >> estimates from different places. >> >> And speaking of shops, anyone know of a trustworthy one near either >> Berlin, >> NJ, or Williamstown, NJ? I'm within 20 minutes of the Atco raceway, >> and 10 >> minutes of Albion U-pull-it, for those familiar with the area. >> >> Thanks! Any info on either of those two questions would be very >> greatly >> appreciated! >> >> >> - Joe Vahabzadeh >> > >
Labor for replacing 3800 freeze/core plugs?
Sorry if this shows up twice - resending because it didn't make it to the list after over 24 hours... All, Well, it of course had to happen then . . my wife, the baby, and her parents took a trip to upstate NY, and on the way back, the Olds, for the first time, left someone stranded. It overheated. So, one very long drive to pick them up (fortunately they'd made it back into NJ before any trouble struck), and one very long tow later (just over 100 miles!), I've gotten under it to look at the thing. Slow leak out of one of the core/freeze plugs (which one *is* the right term, anyway?). Since this is an 89 Olds 88 Royale, 3800 V6, it of course is one of the two that's on the side of the block facing the firewall. I can BARELY get my finger in that area between the block and the transaxle... so being able to get the old one out is nearly out of the question. It's dripping about 1-4 drops per second, but is otherwise REALLY solidly in there. And if I could, while I may be able to get one of those rubber expansion plug replacements in there, I don't think I could get a wrench up there to tighten it. Does anyone have any idea what the standard amount of labor time would be for replacing that thing on this particular car at a shop, or, worst case (shudder) at a GM dealership? I'm just wary of getting wildly different estimates from different places. And speaking of shops, anyone know of a trustworthy one near either Berlin, NJ, or Williamstown, NJ? I'm within 20 minutes of the Atco raceway, and 10 minutes of Albion U-pull-it, for those familiar with the area. Thanks! Any info on either of those two questions would be very greatly appreciated! - Joe Vahabzadeh
Labor for replacing 3800 freeze/core plugs?
All, Well, it of course had to happen then . . my wife, the baby, and her parents took a trip to upstate NY, and on the way back, the Olds, for the first time, left someone stranded. It overheated. So, one very long drive to pick them up (fortunately they'd made it back into NJ before any trouble struck), and one very long tow later (just over 100 miles!), I've gotten under it to look at the thing. Slow leak out of one of the core/freeze plugs (which one *is* the right term, anyway?). Since this is an 89 Olds 88 Royale, 3800 V6, it of course is one of the two that's on the side of the block facing the firewall. I can BARELY get my finger in that area between the block and the transaxle... so being able to get the old one out is nearly out of the question. It's dripping about 1-4 drops per second, but is otherwise REALLY solidly in there. And if I could, while I may be able to get one of those rubber expansion plug replacements in there, I don't think I could get a wrench up there to tighten it. Does anyone have any idea what the standard amount of labor time would be for replacing that thing on this particular car at a shop, or, worst case (shudder) at a GM dealership? I'm just wary of getting wildly different estimates from different places. And speaking of shops, anyone know of a trustworthy one near either Berlin, NJ, or Williamstown, NJ? I'm within 20 minutes of the Atco raceway, and 10 minutes of Albion U-pull-it, for those familiar with the area. Thanks! Any info on either of those two questions would be very greatly appreciated! - Joe Vahabzadeh
3800V6, alum vs plastic intake, VIN?
All, As I understand it, and my understanding may be off, the Series II of the 3800 was introduced in 1995. While the plus side was that the fuel economy was unchanged, and power upped from 170 to 205 horses, the downside was the plastic intake, which had issues (related to the EGR?) Anyway, from what I thought I knew, the 1991 to 1994 was the Series I and used VIN code L. The Series II was 1995-2004 and used VIN K (assuming naturally aspirated, not supercharged). But, um, do I have something wrong here? I suspect I do, because I've come across a 1995 LeSabre, which I would've assumed had the newer motor, but the VIN code for the engine is L. So is this a Series II with the plastic intake, and GM just didn't change over the VIN code yet (or used both the older and newer motors that same year?), or is it a Series I with the aluminum intake? - Joe Vahabzadeh
3800V6, alum vs plastic intake, VIN?
Sorry for the possible duplicate - I sent this over 24 hours ago and it never showed up on the list... --- All, As I understand it, and my understanding may be off, the Series II of the 3800 was introduced in 1995. While the plus side was that the fuel economy was unchanged, and power upped from 170 to 205 horses, the downside was the plastic intake, which had issues (related to the EGR?) Anyway, from what I thought I knew, the 1991 to 1994 was the Series I and used VIN code L. The Series II was 1995-2004 and used VIN K (assuming naturally aspirated, not supercharged). But, um, do I have something wrong here? I suspect I do, because I've come across a 1995 LeSabre, which I would've assumed had the newer motor, but the VIN code for the engine is L. So is this a Series II with the plastic intake, and GM just didn't change over the VIN code yet (or used both the older and newer motors that same year?), or is it a Series I with the aluminum intake? - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: Here's something you don't see every day Chauncy.....
At 03:02 PM 11/18/06 -0700, Milton wrote: >"here's your chance to get your donk rider like all the ones you see on the >net" > >"this donk has 26in. wheels" > >Do we have anyone on the Olds List who can translate? > >Donk rider? >Donk? > Well, my translation is probably out of date. I thought Donk was that big, brutish, ugly, shaved-headed guy from the Crocodile Dundee movies. - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: Your photos
At 07:29 PM 11/7/06 -0500, Chris wrote: >and here's the photo that captures YOU, Sin-dy: >http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b172/Rocket_Science_442/b49c5cb1.jpg > I have to admit that I certainly wasn't expecting that one. Fortunately I wasn't drinking anything at the time, else my monitor would've gotten an impromptu shower. - Joe Vahabzadeh
NMG - was Re: OT: thoughts on fuel economy
At 01:27 PM 11/6/06 -0600, Duane wrote: > Heh, they look like something out of a Dr. Seuss book. > >http://www.hightechscience.org/myers_motors_nmg1.htm > I find it hilarious that you mention that it looks like something from Dr. Seuss, that the link is labeled "Myers Motors" and that Mike Myers played "The Cat In The Hat" - Joe "but I'm easily amused" Vahabzadeh
Re: OT: thoughts on fuel economy
At 01:27 PM 11/6/06 -0600, Duane wrote: > Heh, they look like something out of a Dr. Seuss book. > >http://www.hightechscience.org/myers_motors_nmg1.htm Also, now that I'm on the whole Mike Myers reference . . I have to admit that, if you add an upright tail to it, it looks just like the car Goldmember was driving! - Joe Vahabzadeh
OT: carfax?
Anyone currently have access to carfax and willing to do me a quick favor? If so, hit me offlist.. thanks. - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: thoughts on fuel economy
At 06:31 AM 11/6/06 -0800, Kerry wrote: >OK Milton I agree with most of what you have said here >but >Nuke power plants produce more energy than they >consume?? Right?? So the energy is contained in the >atomic structure and is converted to another form in >the reactor? I think the problem is that the raw materials used in a fission reaction (uranium, plutonium? I can't remember) is much like the oil we get out of the ground. Starting the reaction does take some energy, but then again, starting combustion takes some energy as well (the spark). However, what results is the release of far more stored energy than was needed to initiate the reaction. But you didn't put that energy in there in the first place; it was there, it just had to be released. In a way, the hydrogen combustion would be much the same as gasoline *if* we happened to have a whole bunch of free hydgrogen just sitting around like we have oil in the ground. However, the energy released in hydrogen combustion is the energy that's released when H2 combines with O2. If I recall right, it's H2 + H2 + O2 -> H2O + H2O (I wrote it that odd way because I can't differentiate between factors and subscripts!) However, creating the free H2 in the first place requires doing the precise reverse of that. So, if we need X amount of energy to do this: H2O + H2O -> H2 + H2 + O2 Then we only can get, at most, X amount of energy by burning hydrogen and doing this: H2 + H2 + O2 -> H2O + H2O Basically, we're just using hydrogen as temporary storage of energy. Of course, if you could create all your hydrogen just by electrolysis using solar energy, well, then you come out ahead, because you're basically using the hydrogren to store energy you got from the sun, more or less for free (er, well, hypothetically free, anyway). Anyway, I hope this clarifies things more than muddles it. - Joe Vahabzadeh
Tires/traction: was Re: OT: thoughts on fuel economy
At 06:24 PM 11/4/06 -0700, Milton wrote: >Yes! It is extremely possible, if there was a will to do it. Ahh . . and that is what I wanted to know. >Always remember, cutting weight equals higher speeds or quicker acceleration >or improved fuel economy or all 3 at the same time. Or as I read recently in an editorial blurb in a magazine (Hot Rod or Car Craft, I can't remmeber), which admonished Detroit with regard to their new retro-ponycars "Remember, light makes might". Unfortunately, the new Mustang's a bit of a porker, and it looks like the Challenger will be worse. Not sure about the Camaro . . . But all this got me to thinking . . I know the whole "lighter but larger" cars being safer turned the conventional assumptions on their head. However, in a somewhat different line of thinking, how does lightening the car affect traction? Assuming no changes to the tires, does making a car lighter improve overall traction and handling, or worsen it? I was thinking that being lighter might make traction worse simply because there's less downward force on the tires. But on the other hand . . a heavier car has more inertia. Wouldn't that adversely affect handling? How does real-world physics work in this regard? Thanks - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: OT: thoughts on fuel economy
Wow, lots of responses to this one . . more than I imagined. David wrote: >The higher fuel economy cars died on the vine so to speak because fuel >became cheap / readily available again after the 70's early 80's. The Civic >that you mention was rated at 67 highway and 55 in the city - in 1984 ! Of >course, dropping the CAFE requirements did not help anyone either in the >long run. By 1982? I know my memory's fuzzy, but I thought gas was considered to be expensive at least up to the mid-1980s. Where's that handy-dandy chart of historical prices of gas inflation-adjusted for today when you need it? Was the EPA rating of the CRX HF that high? I thought it was 40s city, 50s highway. I also know the later Civic VX (1992 to 1995 ish?) was rated similarly, though it got a power bump from 60 horses to about 90 due to use of VTEC. I had an 87 CRX HF myself, and while I never got fuel economy in the 50s (then again I never drove it extensively on the expressway), it still did damn well, considering it was still using a carburetor. I think I got a best of 47MPG on one tank, using the A/C, and in rush hour traffic on some days. I did think it could go more than 90 MPH, but I never had the opportunity to test it. It was great, though. I was a student, working part time, and spent 95% of the time in the car either just myself, or one other person. An excellent commuter car. Kenneth wrote: >My thought is that the engine was so underpowered to begin >with that adding 200 pounds to the vehicle would have made it >completely unsafe to operate in traffic. There is more to the >equation than just economy numbers. Remember the last time you got >behind a Moped/scooter in traffic? I imagine those things get >very high MPG, but they can barely keep up with traffic and it >would be absolutely suicidal to attempt to operate one on the >highway, which is why it's illegal to do so. Ah, as I understood it, they would've made the engine bigger or otherwise increased power in some way to compensate for the extra weight. At least, that's the basis I was using to assume a 40% drop in fuel economy. Again, though, this was with 1982-and-earlier technology. I see things like the Smart car, an egg-like 2-seater that uses a turbo 3-cyl and gets around 50-60 MPG. Also, there was some sort of other vehicle that was being designed (by a German company?) that ran on a small diesel engine, seated 2, weighed around 1000 lbs, and could get notably over 100 MPG highway, and I think 70 or 80 city? Can't recall, but I did read that one. I came across another article in my web-wanderings that was actually complaining about the weights of vehicles. It reiterated the point that larger-but-lighter vehicles are the safest, not to mention helpful for fuel economy. It also had buried in there a note that said meeting safety requirements added around 125 lbs to a car in the mid-90s, and so the author was going for a worst-case and doubling that amount to say today's safety requirements add 250 lbs to current vehicles. Plus, I figure, the Honda Civic (well, up to but not including the newest one), and the Honda Insight managed to be VERY lightweight, and meet modern standards (the latter I think weighs in around 1800 lbs or so?) Anyway, all this meandering aside, I guess what I'm trying to figure is whether or not, with the technology available today, would it be possible to build an economy car running strictly on gasoline, AND meeting modern standards for crashworthiness, that could meet or exceed what the Saturn Project did in 1982? I wouldn't expect it to be fast, but fast enough to be useable on public roads (by way of comparision, my CRX HF was rated at 58 SAE Net HP and 90 SAE Net ft-lbs, at 4400 and 2400 RPM respectively). I'd say maybe the worst thing to add to it that most people would want would be air-conditioning, from a weight-penalty point of view. It's an economy car, so I wouldn't imagine a laundry-list of power gizmos would come standard. Could it be done today strictly from a technical point of view? Up until a few months ago, I'd've said unlikely, until I found out what was achieved in 1982. - Joe Vahabzadeh
OT: thoughts on fuel economy
Okay, I meant to ask something about this before, but kept putting it off A recent Hot Rod magazine (Nov 06) had a little blurb on the bottom of p30 that said "100 MPG is yesterday's news", and mentioned the 1982 result of Project Saturn, which was a 2-seater economy car, 3 cylinder, 5 speed, that averaged 105 MPG on the highway and 75 MPG in the city (on a trip from Warren, Michigan, to New York). The last sentence: "Since meeting federal safety requirements and adding creature comforts would have added 200 pounds to the car and required extra horsepower to propel it, GM dropped the program." Ok, now, this isn't exactly a car that would necessarily appeal to us from an enthusiast's point of view, but for the majority of people, and yes, myself included, as a car just to get to and from work everyday, it seems like it would've been a good idea. After all, I've heard/read a number of stories about people in the 70s and 80s picking up musclecars dirt cheap because so many of the commuting public in general were discarding their gas-guzzlers for economy cars. Alright . . so, how much/little could this car have weighed? So, let's say they added the 200 lbs or whatever. What would that have brought the fuel economy down to? Would it be fair to say, maybe, 60 MPG highway, and 40 city, or a loss of about 40% of fuel economy due to the extra weight? Wouldn't this have sold well in 1982, given the price of gas then? So then, why drop the program? I mean, heck, the Honda CRX, HF version, which came out in, what, 1983 or 1984, could manage over 50 MPG on the highway. It wasn't going to impress anyone with its acceleration, but they did it with a carburetor, and in a car weighing 1900 lbs. I imagine the Project Saturn car weighed notably less to achieve the fuel economy numbers that it did... enough so that I would assume that the 200 extra pounds would've still had this car under the 1900 lb mark. And, of course, my further question: If they could do that with the technology available in 1982, where's the 100 MPG car of today? Yes, these are the things that sometimes puzzle me at odd hours - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: To Sell or Not
At 10:26 AM 10/30/06 EST, Harry wrote: >But you have to look at the other side too. You could be the one that always >says.. >" Man..remember that 68 Hurst Olds I didn't buy back then..man..I should >have bought that" There was a red 79 Cutlass you were selling once that I wish I'd actually gotten in touch with you about and bought! Oh, and in retrospect, that gray mid-80s Cutlass with all the neat sort of "performance" options totally mismatched from the factory to the 231 2-bbl... And of course, now I piss and moan about how I can't find anything decent nearby. Then again, what I want seems to change on an hourly basis. That said, getting back to Ron's original question, definitely look at the Old Cars Price Guide. Should be available in the big book stores at the very least. But remember, it's just that, a guide. I've seen some really oddly high as well as oddly low prices for some vehicles in there. Assuming that you still really like the car, and *if* you have no compelling need to sell or any financial crunch going on, you definitely mentally have to add a bunch of money to what the guide says. But . . well . . sometimes maybe there's the whole opportunity-cost thing going on? Maybe the $20K will help out a lot right now, and it may be worth it in the long run for you, even if you do wind up paying more to get a similar car back. It's one of those odd balancing acts. But in any case, the Guide should at least give you a ballpark estimate. It also doesn't hurt to check various websites, see how much people are asking for these cars, and, yes, even eBay, to get a clue as to what the real market is setting the price at. Plus of course the "worth a fortune to the guy who wants THAT car, and worthless to the guy who's not interested in THAT car" scenario. I just realized that all I've done is basically spout some vague philosophy . . and hoped that it offered a little help! - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: What is the ebay address to send fake auctions too?
Well, at the bottom of the page is a link "Report This Auction", which I was able to right-click and choose "open in new window" before the redirect occurred. I'm reporting this one now... - Joe Vahabzadeh At 10:46 AM 10/28/06 EDT, Harry wrote: >They really need to have a big red button to hit on the main page if you >find a fake auctin to report. > >Harry >HotRodHarrys.com > >
Re: EFI manifold pictures
Andrew, What sort of bracket is that holding the compressor in place? It's a bit hard for me to tell from the pic, but it doesn't look like the usual solution of "extending the small compressor bracket to fit on a big block" solution that has often been suggested. - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: 1973 Olds Omega, she is mine..............
Congrats, man! Looking forward to seeing the pics... - Joe Vahabzadeh At 06:03 PM 10/10/06 -0400, Bernie wrote: > Yup, gone and done itjust what I need SS1's were from
cross-rotating radial tires?
Ok, now, I could've sworn that I'd always been told that this was a big no-no, and that radials must be rotated front to back only, but never left to right. Well, erm, brought my car in to Sears to get an alignment and wheel-balancing done. Had to bring it in to re-do the alignment because it apparently made no difference, yet they saw no trouble with the front end components. So, the checked again, and made some adjustments, and swapped the two front tires left-right. Are these guys nuts, or is what I've heard about never switching left-to-right just an old wives' tale? - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: Change diff juice? Why?
At 10:51 PM 9/22/06 -0400, Chris wrote: > >1969 12-bolt Type O diff from the Cutlass: > >http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b172/Rocket_Science_442/6264_69-Cs_DIFFER ENTIAL_11-drainslu.jpg > >More like sludge than oil. >Even after draining all night, much goo was left in there. >Carb cleaner hardly even touches it. Ick . . I was considering changing it on my daily driver (88 T-bird Sport), which probably has never had the diff opened, or drained. Don't know if it being a posi would make it worse. Not looking forward to it if that picture's even halfway toward what I'd expect to see. - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: driving an Olds
At 08:41 PM 9/20/06 -0700, Karen wrote: >Only a 302 (bored out 289). It would spin the tires >just backing out of driveway...was '79 and never as Um, I always thought that the 302 and 289 shared the same bore, but that the latter had a bit shorter of a stroke but I've been wrong before (a lot). - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: 89 Olds 88 sometimes won't start first time?
Thanks for the various suggestions... It is an injected engine. I believe the fuel pump's fine, as I hear it run for a second or two if I put the key in the ON position without starting... er, at least I *think* I did, I'll have to double-check that. No fuel leaks that I've seen or smelled. I'm thinking Milton's suggestion might be right as to the ignition module... but, gotta double-check the fuel pump priming first. - Joe Vahabzadeh
89 Olds 88 sometimes won't start first time?
All, Ok, this may sound like a bit of nit-picking on the car, particularly since it's got 160K on the clock, but a sort of odd symptom has started happening on the 1989 Olds 88 I have. Since I got the car, and until recently, when cranking, the engine would catch incredibly quickly, sometimes almost instantly, even on the coldest of days. It still does, but only sometimes. But when it doesn't, it won't catch at all. When that happens, it doesn't matter how long I try to crank it, it simply won't catch. However, regardless of how quickly I let go of the key or how long I try to crank it, it absolutely *will* catch nearly instantly the second time, EVERY time. But the first time? It's either a flawless start, or just totally won't start, with nothing in between. The non-start times don't seem to follow any pattern, either... though it tends to happen more often when the car's been sitting overnight, my wife reports that it's also happened when the car's still warm and only been sitting a short time. Is this something I should be concerned with? Kinda makes me suspicious that an electronic component of some sort is trying to give me a warning of its impending demise, but I didn't want to jump to any conclusions or start guessing at changing electrical parts. Thanks in advance... - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: odd compression readings on newer Olds
Well, we've long since gotten rid of the car. Which might've been a mistake, because we were afraid at the time it would nickel and dime us to death given the miles on it. Wound up buying another, same year, model, and motor, with only about 68K miles, which dropped dead at 90K. Mechanic says "There's no way in hell this thing has only 90K on it" Still, given what we paid for it, we got our money's worth out of it, but I'm wondering if that same money would've kept the other one going even longer. - Joe Vahabzadeh At 03:12 PM 9/4/06 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Joe, As you said it has the single injector ahead of the intake manifold >which is the same setup as my car. allow too much exhaust gas into the >intake which will most certainly cause the engine to miss or hesitate when >you're accelerating from idle. At idle this isn't a problem because the EGR >is hooked up to ported vacuum, so it should not be open at idle. >
Re: odd compression readings on newer Olds
At 02:15 AM 9/3/06 GMT, njot33 wrote:
>Milton, What you said makes a lot of sense.
>You asked about the ignition wires, and yes, I did recently replace them.
> about having dirty fuel injectors being the source of missing/sputtering
>is a definite possibility. Thanks again,
Injector . . singular, if I recall correctly (and my powers of recall are
NOT that great). I believe the 2.5 4cyl had a single throttle-body style
injector. My wife's 87 Celebrity had a tendency to miss/sputter ("my car
farts" she used to say) quite badly when you pulled away from idle. Never
an actual problem at idle or once you got going though, but we never
figured out what was causing it.
Sorry for the slight diversion...
- Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: Hardened Valve Seats
Didn't someone on-list once mention that Oldsmobile and Mopar V8s of the leaded era had a tendency to hold up to the lack of lead better than other makes, on average? I think there was also a brief explanation as to why. In fact, I could've sworn that on list, I once even asked "Didn't someone on-list..." etc., except that a bunch of my emails have disappeared. - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: 1979 350ci crank
At 11:41 PM 8/31/06 -0700, Milton wrote: >Any 330, 350, or 403 crank will fit and work fine. They're all the same size >and stroke. For a 330 crank, you would need to use the early flexplate that >goes with that crank. Because the cranks are being switched, the >reciprocating assembly would need to be rebalanced, anyway. > > Out of curiosity, is there any reason a 307 or 260 crank wouldn't work? I'd assume they would . . but I'll refrain from the much abused "assume" joke. - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: Hardened Valve Seats
At 10:35 AM 8/31/06 -0400, Matt wrote:
>time ago there was a discussion about this topic and a couple of guys wrote,
>that they never used any hardened seats, used no Pb gas and made well over
>10 miles happily... with no recess of the exhaust seat.
>It was a 2 computers before, so I lost the files, but I'm sure about
Likely because of what Milton mentioned, that since they were originally
run with the leaded gas, they built up the deposits on the seats (wait, he
did say the seats, right?). So, once the lead was phased out, these
engines already had their protection.
OTOH, that does have me wondering, what causes the recession in the
pre-unleaded era heads if they spent their first few years using leaded
gas? IIRC, anyone who could use both would use leaded because it was
cheaper at the time.
- Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: needs 73 98 455 engine specs...
At 12:15 AM 8/29/06 -0700, John wrote: >Can't seem to find them anywhere else online so >thought I'd try here...the Olds FAQ wasn't too >helpful...am looking at buying one of these, and it is >immaculate just wasn't sure about how badly they >detuned the 455 for that year, compared to >71-72...Hp/torque, CR etc...Any appropiate digests >pertaining to this year model would be >excellent...Thanks for the input Take a look at the charts I keep at: http://home.comcast.net/~king-v/engine_specs/ Note that the info is only as accurate as my sources, which are mostly Chilton's and Motor repair books. Unfortunately, their accuracy on occasion leaves a bit to be desired. - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: Hardened Valve Seats; WAS: needs 73 98 455 engine specs...
At 10:26 AM 8/30/06 -0500, Steve wrote: >Hi All, > >I thought hardened valve seat came into production Olds in '71 or '72. I >am basing this assumption on (as you pointed out) the owners manual says >unleaded gas is approved. I have not addedt lead substitute to this car, >but will start to do so if hardened valve seaats are not installed. > >Can others confirm this? (No offense, John!) > I'm not sure as to hardened seats vs valves only vs any "shortcuts" or varying methods that were used over the years, but the owner's manual for my previously owned 1972 Buick Skylark, as well as for my previously owned 1972 Olds 98, both said that these engines were safe to run on low-lead or unleaded gasoline. I've put 7000 miles on the 72 Olds 455 without using any sort of lead additive, with no ill effects. I don't know how much the previous owners drove it nor what, if any, precautions they took. - Joe Vahabzadeh
an eVil site Olds fraud?
Well, ok, let's just say I have my suspicions. This car's actually located quite close to me. I took a brief look in-person . . rust around the edges of the vinyl top, some interior flaws, not worth the price, in my opinion. Item number 300018501238 But lo and behold, this car was already sold. In fact, I looked at it during its PREVIOUS auction. Item number 39723222 Wow, sold for $3850 then to someone who at the time had no feedback. Judging by the bid history back then, the starting price was VERY low. Wow part II: the previous auction ended Jul 27 at 15:31. The winner got positive feedback from the seller on Jul 27 at 15:55. In a mere 24 minutes, the deal went through and the seller was satisfied? Wow part III: the car was relisted about August 20 I would say. Starting price of $4500. So, where's the link for "I suspect there's something fishy going on"? - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: Rotella-T
I've got a bit of a question, then . . . Are roller cams/lifters readily available for the various non-roller 307 Olds V8's? If so, what's the downside? I'd been thinking of going roller anyway, if such was available, but this whole thing with the oil additives might make it a prudent choice anyway. - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: semi OT: length of 83 Cutlass vs....
At 07:50 PM 8/7/06 -0700, Karen wrote: >I did measure my '78 98 Regency coupe a few months ago >(for new car cover) and it was either 21 or 22 feet. >It's dark out now, or I would re-measure for you. >That is bumper to bumper, including the black/white >striped bumper guards. karen Well, when you get the chance, let me know. Bumper to bumper including the bumper-guards is perfect, as I'm trying to figure if I can close the garage door with the car parked in there! - Joe Vahabzadeh
semi OT: length of 83 Cutlass vs....
Ok, so semi-off topic.
I've not been able to find via web searches the length of the 83 Cutlass
(2dr), bumper to bumper, compared to the following:
1) 83 Mercury Zephyr
2) 79 Cutlass
3) 78 Olds 98 (2dr)
Is there some sort of guide or reference somewhere that lists vehicle
weights, overall lengths, etc? Does anyone have the info on these
particular models handy? I know someone once gave me the lengths of the
77-80 B/C bodies, but I lost all my Olds emails from late 2001 to early
2005 or so.
Thanks in advance...
- Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: Please rate this part
At 11:47 AM 8/7/06 -0400, Chris wrote: >ebay buyer is asserting that I sold a part not as described. > >Please look at these pix, and rate whether I accurately described the item. >You know how LH inner fender liners of steel are always rotted away under >the battery? >Buyer called the other day vaguely threatening to issue negative feedback, >inquiring about the $43 refund, which I did issue, but he thought I did >not etc. Exactly *what* is this guy claiming? Did he mention any specific problem, or just an overall "it's not as good as you described"? I'm giving your description around a 5 or 6 or so. It sounds like he read stuff and saw the pictures, judging by the questions he asked below. I'm wondering if this guy pulls a "give me half the money back or else" scam on everyone he buys from. - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: BBO Offy Olds cross ram pic
At 11:01 PM 8/3/06 -0500, Howard wrote: >The thought to keep in mind, when these first came out in 1961 or 62, it >was top of line technology, and worked much better that the basic manifold >it was bolted to! Almost every one made one, Trans-Am legal 302 Z/28's, 413 >Wedge, and 426 Hemi Dodge Ramchargers. The universals "just say Why-And", Ahh, see, I would've assumed, looking at the picture, that bolting the carbs straight to the intake, rather than using those cross-ram adapters, would've worked better. Now the one thing I thought was cool was the old Mopar cross-ram (long-ram?) intake manifolds. Looked like they made it a royal pain to do routine work on the engine, but at least with those, it was one 90-degree bend under the carb, then a gradual curve along the incredibly long intake runners. The one I saw was a photo of one on a 413 wedge. Of course, I'm told, even those had issues with puddling under the carbs in cold weather. That's what I think the cool thing is about port fuel injection. Using dry rather than wet manifolds allows for long runners in positions that just wouldn't be practical for a wet-system. - Joe Vahabzadeh
RE: Fuel Injection on a SBO
At 08:45 AM 8/3/06 -0400, ron wrote: >Greg wrote: >>discussed how to resolve problems with these engines. The letter-writer >>explained that his solution was to replace the 4100 with a small-block >>Olds 307 or 350 -- indicating that it was a fairly simple exchange, >>keeping the FI setup and computer! This sounds too good to be true but it >>makes me wonder if this might be an overlooked option. >I can see the 307 fitting since they came with that as an option. but fi. >Most everything would work with slight modification, but what tells the ecm >the cylinder position, and rpm, the distributor would need modified or a >crank trigger set up used to sync fuel and spark advance and retard. >Did they get into any more details Well, the 4100 used DFI, which was a throttle-body system, wasn't it? Didn't this run with a more or less ordinary distributor? I imagine crank position is irrelevant, though I'll admit my understanding of what a throttle-body system really needs to operate is *extremely* limited. I guess the best way to start answering this is by asking 1) What's the bare minimum a TBI-type system needs to run in terms of sensors and inputs, and 2) what does the Caddy DFI system use in terms of sensors and inputs? My guess would start with: 1) Throttle position sensor 2) MAP sensor (or some type of load-measuring or vacuum measuring system) 3) Tachometer signal. Would TBI really need anything more? And in 1982, how sophisticated was this system? Very interesting stuff, though, I'd definitely like to know more. - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: BBO Offy Olds cross ram pic
I can't imagine that it would work too well, given the multiple, sudden 90-degree turns that the air-fuel mix has to make. Seems like there'd be too much opportunity for the fuel to separate out. That's my guess, anyway. As you might imagine, I don't do intake manifold design! - Joe Vahabzadeh At 04:29 PM 8/2/06 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >holy crap dude >and that works? > >- Original Message - >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> http://images.andale.com/f2/115/106/3596099/1156147294576_MVC_049F_1_.JPG >>
Re: Miller's 700HP engine, was Re: Ebay, Pay-Pal, and other such randerings.
At 05:29 PM 7/26/06 -0700, Milton wrote: >But cast iron heads and aluminum heads both have the same CR limits. >Actually, because of flex, the cast iron heads will hold head gasket seal >much better at ultra high CRs than aluminum heads. There simply is no >difference in absolute CR potential. Ah . . I think I see where the debate lies. True, there's no difference in *absolute* CR potential, but as I understand it (from admittedly casual reading and also admittedly not paying a whole heck of a lot of attention to it), given a specific octane of fuel, aluminum heads can run higher compression without risk of detonation, than can iron heads... given that all other factors are equal, of course. At least, that's how I remember reading it. Actually, I seem to recall reading somewhere that you can generally go about a full point of compression higher on a given octane of fuel with aluminum as opposed to iron, but that's one I'm really shaky on (in terms of my recollection). - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: Reply from '68 H/O ''Clone'' seller
At 11:31 AM 7/25/06 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >oh my God guys just let 'em stew in their own >caveat emptor > >i know its fun to screw with idiots but you're clearly just wasting your >time Well, true . . on the other hand it sometimes *is* entertaining. Then again, my dad used that same expression when I bought and was working on my 70 Newport convertible . . . "you're just wasting your time" He thought I'd never get it running - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: Miller's 700HP engine, was Re: Ebay, Pay-Pal, and other such randerings.
At 10:10 PM 7/24/06 -0400, Joe Walters wrote: >Hi Milton, >I was gone for the weekend so this is a late response. To continue >playing the other camp. I would say this would bring up the classic >aluminum vs. cast iron debate. The aluminum guy would say that since >aluminum runs cooler I can run higher compression to make up the >difference you stated above. Plus still have a significant weight savings. Or, if you're in a position like I am, and don't know enough or have the tools to do the machining yourself, or know of a competent machinist who knows Olds (he might, he might not), then spending the money on the new aluminum heads might be the way to go. On the other hand, I do think it's cool that the classic Olds iron heads can be worked to compete with the modern aluminum design. Until now, I didn't know the basic design of the original iron heads was good enough for that. - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: Satan's H/O 'clone' = Chris's Ebay buddy #130008924989
At 12:24 PM 7/24/06 -0400, Chris wrote: >Kerry Wrote >Chris >Is this the same car you bought with the funny money a >while back? >Still has the Buick 455! His buddies are still trying >to bid it up for him >.++ >I sent this: > >Say, that's not an OLDS engine. Honesty requires the seller to specify >exactly what sort of engine it has. A paint job does not a 'clone' make, >either... where's the stuff that matters, like the final drive ratio, the >Outside Air Induction, His-n-Hers slapstick Shifter, etc.? > >Huh, I thought Jason Evers told me he sold that car, for more than what my >'bid' was... Hmm . . see, now this is interesting, the car's in Long Island, but the seller's in Connecticut according to basic information here when doing a search for a particular seller's items (this is gonna have to be copy-pasted in multiple segments): http://motors.search.ebay.com/?MfcISAPICommand=MemberSearchResult&frompage=i temsbyseller&sofindtype=26&userid=freddy456&completed=1&since=30&fcm=1&fsop= 1%26fsoo%3D1&frpp=50&fcl=3&pfid=&fpos=08081&alist=a39%2Ca41%2Ca38v1y%2Ca38v2 y%2Ca10239%2Ca3801%2Ca85%2Ca10246%2Ca33512%2Ca10241%2Ca10244%2Ca39705&fisc=c 6001&sadis=500&gcs=13&from=R7&nojspr=y&pfid=0 Now if one checks for item number 130005309065, we'll see that, yet again, this car's been already sold. To user suelees, and the auction ended on July 15th. Yet, the currently running auction, 130008924989 by the same seller for the same car started on July 19th, and lo and behold, suelees did not receive any negative feedback. Wonder of wonders! - Joe "I have a car that looks EXACTLY like that I'd sell ya, just send me the money first" Vahabzadeh
Re: AC Question
At 11:38 PM 7/23/06 -0700, Milton wrote: > >Okay, so to disrupt the sequence, one has to turn the engine off, with the >AC switch already off, to shutdown the compressor, correct? I'm glad my '65 >isn't that way. What happens if you switch over from A/C to heat, vent, or some other non-compressor operating setting? Would that shut off the compressor? > >So I've got a question. I was always under the impression that if the AC >compressor was still running, doing its job, but the AC blower fan was off, >so that no thermal exchange was taking place inside the evaporator, then >large quantities of liquid freon would circulate through the evaporator, >through the condenser, and then hit the intake side of the compressor in >liquid form. I was always told that AC compressors did not tolerate well >digesting liquid freon on the intake side and could suffer damage. What do >you 2 say? What does the rest of the list have to say about that facet of AC >operation? Inquiring minds need to know. I don't know about liquid freon hitting the intake side of the compressor or not. However, on my 1989 Olds, when you add freon, the service manual says you do it with the can upside down, implying to me that liquid freon will hit the compressor, and that this is meant to do this. Not really sure on that fact though... and of course it's a much later compressor design, so this all might be apropros to nothing. I've heard that some compressors are supposed to be charged with the can upright rather than upside down, but have no idea on how to make the distinction without having a shop manual say it "do it *this* way and not *that* way for this particular year/make/model" - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: eBay '65 442
At 04:25 PM 7/20/06 -0400, john wrote: >I saw the ad this morning, and I did not think it was a "real" 442...and >you >have to admit. it is a great looking car. maybe he does not state it often >enough >that it is a "clone", but I did not take it that way. I think the seller's sorta skirting the line on that one. It's listed under the 442 category, but it's actually a Cutlass done as a 442 clone. If I were to guess, I'd say he's pushing the edge as much as possible while technically legally covering himself. Ad states that it's not a real 442, but listing it in the 442 category strikes me as somewhat deceptive, and deliberate in that regard. Maybe I'm just cranky, though. - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: TX man Dan King ripping off the Rocket Scientist?
How long ago was the actual purchase, payment, shipping, etc?
Did PayPal contact you at all? I wasn't aware that one could arbitrarily
take back a payment that was made, no questions asked.
How the @&$! does that work??
- Joe Vahabzadeh
At 10:18 AM 7/17/06 -0400, Chris Witt wrote:
>Dude paid for LH inner fender liner for '65 Cutlass
>
>Then paid for the boxing as set forth in the ad
>
>Gave me a FedEx acct # to use
>
>Then today PayPal took back the $43 boxing money
>
>WTH?
>
>Anyone know this guy:
>
>Daniel King
>2611 W. 45th St.
>Austin TX 78731
Re: 350 rebuild 4th time
At 12:52 AM 7/13/06 -0400, Ron wrote: >My friend mike is letting the ever so failing machine shop rebuild his >engine. again. > >What do you all say I'm thinking that your friend should: 1) Find another engine builder AND 2) Get back every single penny he's paid, parts and labor, to this first machine shop, via the courts if necessary, from all three prior rebuilds. >From the details you've given us thus far, and the fact that it's had to be rebuilt so many times already in such a short period, I'm wondering if these "builders" have ever physically seen an internal combustion engine prior to mangling your friend's 350. There's absolutely no excuse for this to happen. - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: Item #300005735000--looks like 98, not Cutlass?
At 11:42 PM 7/11/06 -0700, Karen wrote: >Still searching for exterior parts on EBay, came >across this taillight assembly. I swear that is a >1978 Ninety-Eight, not Cutlass? Karen My VERY inexpert opinion says that you're right, it's not a Cutlass taillight. It does look like a 98 to me, but I couldn't say what year. To show you how off I might be, though, at first I was thinking late 1980s Olds 98 when I saw it. - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: idiots
At 02:40 PM 7/10/06 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Did you know that when you bore a 425 .030 over it's "officially a >455V8"? You win! Well of course! Didn't you know that? I mean, come on, it's "thirty over" which means 425 + 30 = 455. No, I couldn't even manage to type that with a straight face... - Joe Vahabzadeh
OT: Do I have some sort of curse following me
All, Well, ok, you know that I've recently had a son. Made the announcement a few days back. Thursday evening, I send out an email to colleages from a former job, as well as to some former classmates, announcing the same. Friday morning, I get laid off. Talk about [EMAIL PROTECTED] timing. . . >From now on, if anyone even asks me "Hey, what's going on?" I'm going to get a terrified look on my face, and in an absolutely paranoid voice say "What? No! Nothing! Nothing at all!! Why would you even ask??" - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: 2004R trans
At 07:10 AM 6/29/06 -0400, Dave wrote that Bruce wrote: >> A guy I know has an '87 Cutlass with a 2004R trans in it. Says he has the >> benefit of good launch and overdrive. Somehow I think he had to find a >> valve >> body from Buick to make it work (maybe a turbo or grand national) Seems >> like >> it would be a lot easier than the Geravendors setup. Anybody have any >> experience with the 2004R? > >They work well behind Olds engines. Garden variety OG type is lame (slow and >soft shifting) but hipo OZ is crisp and they can by modified to any level >your heart desires. > As I understand it, it's very nearly a direct bolt-in. The only issues are you need something to trigger the lockup, and you've got to move the crossmember to the position you'd have for a TH400 trans (not 100% sure on that). The driveshaft should stay the same length as it would with a TH350 in the car. - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: welcoming a new member
Sorry list, that last one was supposed to go directly to Duane, not to the list! Yipe! - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: No fuel? No wonder!
At 12:39 AM 6/25/06 -0400, Chris wrote:
Wait, this is the one that got sold for the buttload of money on eBay?
Holy crap, that's a *lot* of hidden nastiness!
Note to self: don't buy a classic unless I bring at least two experts with me!
- Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: welcoming a new member
Duane, Thanks for the congrats and the compliments on the humor section. I have to admit that, with the exception more or less of the engine_specs stuff, the website's languished in web-page design of the mid-1990s era. I kept telling myself I was going to clean it up . . been saying that for about 8 years now! :) - Joe At 09:31 AM 6/22/06 -0500, you wrote: > New kids are always exciting, but don't forget to make mom feel special >too! By the way, I just perused your website...that humor section is >hilarious. Duane 72 Cutlass Convertible > > On 6/21/06, Joe Vahabzadeh<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok, well, he >doesn't have his own email, and hasn't joined the list, but I >thought you all might want to welcome him. > >In this picture, age 15 hours, Nicolàs Antonio Vahabzadeh > >http://home.comcast.net/~king-v/15hrs.jpg > >And, as you might guess, the first, and so far *only* car he's ever been >in: an Oldsmobile. > > - Joe Vahabzadeh > > > >-- >Duane >01 Ram 2500 4x4 QC SB CTD >72 Cutlass Convertible
Teflon tape? - re 69 Cutlass
At 06:58 PM 6/21/06 -0700, Milton wrote: >Yeah. I tell people all the time - Teflon tape on pipe threads only - no >Teflon tape on machine threads for any type of compression fitting, Ever and >Never. See, I'll have to admit right up front that I did not know that! And, unfortunately, I have put teflon tape on the outside of the threads that go into the carb where the filter is. So, for the fuel inlet, you just leave it clean and bare? Where exactly would you use the teflon tape then? - Joe Vahabzadeh
welcoming a new member
Ok, well, he doesn't have his own email, and hasn't joined the list, but I thought you all might want to welcome him. In this picture, age 15 hours, Nicolàs Antonio Vahabzadeh http://home.comcast.net/~king-v/15hrs.jpg And, as you might guess, the first, and so far *only* car he's ever been in: an Oldsmobile. - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: trip computer and climate control freakiness!
At 10:42 AM 6/20/06 -0400, Wes wrote: >It sounds like it could be a bad ground somewhere in the dash. The >trip computer is supposed to have constant power to retain date, time, >etc. Maybe a shared ground between the fan controller and the trip >computer has come loose - maybe two wires to the same round screw have >lost connection - the climate control first, then the trip computer? > >Just a guess... And actually, technically, not too far off. I started pulling apart the upper part of the dash, hoping I could see that loose wire. Get to a certain point, and the dash simply won't pull away. Maybe too little slack in the wires? I resign myself to a bit of a miserable time, when I happen to glance down. Hmm . . strange, my wife's cellphone charger's not lit. Wiggling it around a bit doesn't seem to help the way it usually does. Er, what's this? The stereo seems a bit off? Didn't Wes say something about a common ground? Common ground . . common circuit? This sounds an awful lot like . . argh! It is! A fuse! Granted, the description doesn't give the indication very well that it has anything to do with the climate control's display, but, a burnt fuse is there. Fortunately there's a spare. So, cool, now I'm at least back to where I was, with a very minimal amount of effort required. Wes, the answer you gave me was wrong, but it was enough to get through my thick skull to put 2 and 2 together, and come up with 4 . . eventually! :) - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: faux '68 CLone H/O on ebay
I mentioned interest by contacting the seller, saying that I might be up in Long Island this weekend, and thus might want to come see the car, etc. So I tried to get an address. Don't know if anyone's gotten an address from him yet. He wanted me to give his phone number to arrange a time to see the car. All I've gotten thus far is that he's in Suffolk county, and is moving soon. Was he moving last time, I can't recall? Anyhoo, did anyone ever find an address for this guy before? Maybe I'm trying to reinvent the wheel here but I figure if someone was able to get there in person and verify the car's existence, that might be something. - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: call me old-fashined...
True what Kevin says. A reminder or two isn't out of line, and it *should* at least give the potential employer an indication that you're not sending resumes out blindly. The cynical side of me also says "well, if they're not going to hire you anyway, you can't hurt your chances by calling and asking for an update" But, yeah, I'd think at least an automated form-letter type postcard would at least be nice. Maybe it's just me... - Joe Vahabzadeh At 01:28 PM 6/13/06 -0700, Kevin wrote: >Chris, >As for calling, one or two reminder calls aren't out of line. > > >Christopher Witt wrote: >> Am I supposed to call each week and pester them about it? I don't want >> to seem like a nag.
Re: Return of the Red Mine, needs engine
At 01:39 PM 6/10/06 -0400, Peg wrote: >> My kid just bought a Scion that makes 160 hp on a 4 cyl motor and goes >> like stink. Technology has come a long way, and displacement isn't king >> any more. >> >>> Granted, it took them using SEFI to do it, but it shows it can be done. > >Yeah, while I've always loved the phrase "There's no replacement for >displacement," it's hard to defend when you're eating dust most of the >time. > >Should I even consider EFI? Only if you *want* to. If you're looking to make power in a hurry, I'd go with the 403. If you're looking to drop in an engine *tomorrow*, well, there's your 307. However, with either one of those, you could convert over to EFI. Since these engines didn't ever come with EFI (exception: Olds 350 in Seville with the analog EFI system), it's going to be notably a home-brew system. I imagine that whatever effort it takes to covert a 307 to EFI would pretty much be exactly the effort to do it on a 403. But I look at EFI on a car that never came with it as an option only when I'm in one of those "Yeah, I think it'd be really cool if I could do that" sort of thing. Digressing from that question a bit, I can't remember if your 307 was a roller or not. If it is, I could've sworn I read somewhere that the tiny intake runners of a 260's intake will match (or nearly so) a roller-307's intake ports. Don't remember where I read that or how accurate it is. Also, does anyone know, given how restrictive the heads are on a roller-307, does it ever use the secondaries? Would it suffer any loss at all if stuck with a 260's carb and intake? Just sort of wondering... - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: cars are the problem
At 05:43 AM 6/10/06 -0700, Kerry wrote: >> As to the whole global warming issue, I'm going to >> go with what the vast >> majority of the scientific community says, because >> it's their job to figure >> out these things. > >Science by democratic process?? Like when the earth >was flat and like when witches caused illness and >death? Right, but what's the alternative then? Believing someone else? If so, who? >> I'm not going to believe >> politicians, nor >> business interests. > >But you will believe Scientists who are paid big money >to get a desired result by special interest and >segments of the government with a vested interest? I'd prefer to avoid that, particularly if I found out that was the case. I'm not sure what the general scientific community has as an agenda or special interest. ie: If I'm reading something about tobacco having no relation to lung cancer, but then find out only ONE scientist is saying that, and all his checks are written by Bob's Tobacco, Inc., then I get suspicious. > > >> That said, getting somewhat off-topic, since we know >> electricity generation >> contributes to global warming, >> - Joe Vahabzadeh > >Joe - We do not know global warming (outside of any >natural cycle or process) even exists! Well, then if this is part of a normal warming trend, how do we know that? Is it just coincidence, and global warming is *not* happening by man-made causes, and we just happen to be at the end of one weather cycle and the beginning of the next? >All the emotional Hype and scare tactics started some >years ago by a French guy - Jacques Cousteau ( sorry >about the spelling) 1968 was the first I recall, was >successful in making the masses feel guilty and thus >supporting causes to save , causes which are >in fact designed to raise money and damage free >enterprise and damage their political opponents. Its a >big GAME and our minds are the pawns. If they can make >you fell guilty for having a V8 or driving a SUV or >not having a solar heat system then they get what they >want - another slave on the plantation who will >sacrifice his Happiness (+)to serve their cause. See, now I have a lot of trouble believing this without evidence. If there's some sort of conspiracy here, and there's people who know it's a conspiracy, where's the evidence. - Joe Vahabzadeh
RE: It's Finally Happening ('78 Cutlass Project): Advice?
At 09:34 AM 6/9/06 -0400, Peg wrote: >No, I understand what emissions are, of course...I meant "what's that?" in the >sense that there will be *no* emissions crap on this engine. Only certain >counties in Florida require emissions testing, and Alachua isn't one of them. > Another thing with the 307 is that if you remove all the electronics, computer, etc., basically stuff that wasn't on a 1978, well, you're going to have to replace the carburetor, otherwise it's going to run way rich, hurting power and fuel economy . . . that is, if I understand the various conversations I've heard about something called the MCS correctly. - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: Return of the Red Mine, needs engine
>I know the FAQ writers say they haven't been >able to get much juice out of the 307, and while my goal is not to leave >every other car in the dust, I would like to get some eye-opening punch >out of it. >=== >There's only so much you can do with 300 inches. >403 starts off with 33% more engine in the same size and weight [almost] >package. >403, stock or maybe as early as #7 heads, aluminum A4 intake, good to go. Well, I think someone on this very list has gotten reasonable performance out of a 307. It starts with more torque than any similar displacement engine of the era managed with a carburetor. Also, don't forget, for both the tame luxo-barge version, and the H.O. version, Ford managed to do quite well out of that sort of displacement. Granted, it took them using SEFI to do it, but it shows it can be done. However, Chris is right as far as money goes. You can get a lot more grunt for a lot less money from a 403, there's no debate there! > > > >I also need decent highway gearing so I can go to Olds >shows, since the closest ones to me are about 2 hours away. >what do you guys think? >- --- >Peg O'Connor > >Pick your best econo ratio from the 2 cars and run with it. A well cammed >403 will work nicely with hiway gears. I'd like to see a 2-bbl 403 with >hiway gears. Turpike Cruiser, if you will. > Someone also on this list has a late 70s 403-powered B or C body? Can't remember who off the top of my head. I think he said that, with 2.41 gears and dual exhausts, he can keep up with the LT-1 big-mobiles . . . I'm trying to remember from an email from a few years ago, though, so I may be jumbling some things here. - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: cars are the problem
As to the whole global warming issue, I'm going to go with what the vast majority of the scientific community says, because it's their job to figure out these things. I don't personally know. I'm not going to believe politicians, nor business interests. But when the scientific community in general says "Mankind's actions are contributing to global warming, definitely, it's just a matter of to what degree," well, then it's hard for me to argue with that. I don't have the data to know whether it's from vehicular use, power production, or what. I suspect the latter is the bulk of it, but I'm not so naive as to think the former doesn't contribute to some extent. I may not like it or want it to be that way. I like my V8, therefore, the problem sucks. But I know the problem is there. That said, getting somewhat off-topic, since we know electricity generation contributes to global warming, I'm very surprised that most new homes don't come with solar panels on the roof, though I imagine that it would be an easier sell in the southwest US than, say, Seattle. :) - Joe Vahabzadeh
Electric vehicles: Re: cars are the problem
At 03:32 PM 6/9/06 -0700, Steven wrote: >I agree, people do not realize just exactly where electricity comes from, >the majority of it in the US is from burning coal. Imagine the polution if >everyone drove electric vehicles! > Ah, see, this is something we can probably "bite into" with numbers. Yes, electricity from burning coal is highly polluting. But we're also producing electricity for a LOT of things besides transportation. Now, I don't *know* what the numbers are, or how to measure them. But, I imagine that with the right information, it can be determined whether the production of electricity to move an electric car 100 miles is more or less pollution than the usage of gasoline to do the same. I'm given to understand that the electricity production would be less polluting, but I don't have the hard data. Anyone know, or know where to get such info? Does, say, driving a fully electric car 100 miles create more pollution from the electricity production than driving an otherwise similar car using gasoline to go 100 miles? - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: FW: Driver License Info. new jersy screws you once again
At 07:52 PM 6/6/06 -0400, ron wrote: > MAKE SURE YOU HAVE YOUR WALLET WITH YOU... > > > Driving Ticket fine increase in NJ: > > Starting on August 15th, the price of a ticket for violation of NJ > Law39:3-29 (failure to show your driver's license, registration, or > insurance card at the time you are stopped) is going from $44.00 to > $173.00. Please make sure your vehicles have the proper documents in them. > If you jump in the car to run to the store and forget your wallet with > your license in it and you are stopped Oh well... you just spent $173. > And the fine for not having all three documents is $519!!! Yes, that's technically true. But if you take a look at: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/notices/n030825a.htm that actually took effect August 15th, 2003. For the registration, it's absolutely absurd since a police officer can run your plate and verify whether or not the car is registered. I'm not sure about insured, however. > > Forward to people in NJ, and let them know of this change. And be careful, > the fine for hand held cell phone use while driving will be going up to > $180.00. If this site is to be believed: http://www.cellular-news.com/car_bans/ it's "up to $250" in New Jersey. As of 9/1/2004, if this document is accurate: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/mcs/svbs_9-04/part1_b_c.pdf it's $130. - Joe Vahabzadeh
need a part # for Climate Control assembly
All,
Still trying to work out my possessed climate control system. 1989 Olds
Eighty-Eight Royale.
It's got the automatic/electronic climate control system. According to
the service manual, they describe two things:
1) A/C Control Assembly Faceplate
2) Heater and A/C Control (Electronic Climate Control) Assembly (C68)
#2 seems to be a combination of #1 plus the circuit-board and housing
that
go behind it.
Does anyone have, or know where I can get, a part number for these?
Thanks!
- Joe Vahabzadeh
RE: 442 Achieva
At 05:13 PM 6/3/06 -0400, ron wrote: >Okay you feel that 4 cyl hunk of junk is comparable to a 442. how about I >swap you the front wheel hunk of junk we have at the shop for a nice 69 >442. >Since it ranks right up there. >Just think how cool it would look with 60 series tires in the rear and 50's >up front for traction. > The noise the of the timeing chain guids rattling after 80,000 miles. And >the 1-1/8 split in the rear for that fake dual exhaust look while it idles >so rough do being worn out. Where my 442 idled rough do to the cam choice. >Lets not forget the oil it burns do to clogged pcv system. >At changing the starter is not a problem due to exhaust .the intake is just >in the way. Lol >But it's a 442 Well, I'm not saying it wouldn't have its issues, but then, many cars do. Also, think of the era when that engine was developed, and when the car came out. Would I prefer a Calais 442 FWD to a real RWD one, even the relatively anemic 307 versions? Hell no! But, does the Calais 442 FWD qualify to be considered a musclecar? Well, maybe yes. - Joe Vahabadeh
Re: Emailing: 242
Feh, I don't get that channel at this time. Anyone taping this?
- Joe Vahabzadeh
At 12:51 AM 6/2/06 -0400, ron wrote:
> check this out,there going to compare 69 H/O to other muscle cars
>ron
>The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
>
>Shortcut to: http://speedtv.com/programs/242/
Re: E85 gas
At 07:44 PM 6/1/06 -0700, Steven wrote: >Basically, you'd need to carry 11 gallons of E85 to go the same distance you >went on 10 gallons of gasoline. Hmm, maybe even the small 15 percent of gasoline helps quite a bit? I thought I recall reading that with straight (100%) ethanol, the A/F ratio had to be adjusted to around 7:1 or 8:1 instead of the usual 14.7:1. Which is why I'm surprised more isn't going into butyl alcohol. Somewhat less trouble with water relative to ethanol (not sure *how* much or little of an improvement, though), and there's more energy per gallon, I think the mixture would be somewhere in the 10:1 or so range? Again, assuming straight 100% alcohol. It's been a couple of months since I bothered to look at the numbers, though. - Joe Vahabzadeh
RE: 442 Achieva
At 10:57 PM 6/1/06 -0400, ron wrote: >I may be wrong about the achievia, but they did make a front wheel drive >442 with a quad 4. and although it may have sounded mean. >It was in no respect a muscle car Late 80s or early 90s Calais, if I recall right. Given the the car weighed only like 2700 or 2800 lbs, and the fact that it produced something like 180 (I think) horsepower, I'm sure it could move. Of course, that was with (then) exotic technology on a 4 cylinder, high compression (10:1), and you had to spin the snot out of it. I think peak horsepower was at or just above 6000 rpm. Torque, as you might guess, was a bit shy, but then again, it wasn't a heavy car. I dunno, though. Would it qualify as a musclecar? What would make it qualify, what wouldn't? - Joe Vahabzadeh
RE: '96 Olds LSS, OT?
Scott, Well, I've still got that guy's email, send him a quick message, and he replied. They're made by Sylvania, and they're called "Silverstar" . . he very highly recommends, them, and says they make a huge difference at night. - Joe Vahabzadeh At 08:10 PM 5/30/06 -0400, you wrote: >At 09:31 AM 5/30/06 -0500, Scott wrote: >>Perhaps I put people to sleep with my long post...no one had a suggestion >>for brighter headlights :( >Star-something or other. They were bright-white replacements for the usual >halogen bulbs. The assistant manager had them in his Monte Carlo LS and he >swore by them. > >I'll see if I've still got his email address somewhere, and ask what brand >they were.
Re: 3.8 FWD FI with distributor?!
At 05:03 AM 5/30/06 -0700, David wrote: >Joe - > >As far as the Oldsmobiles go, this was a engine that was only used in the >1985 model year 98's. It is also the first year of the 98 FWD's. But not the >Delta 88's as they did not switch to FWD until the 1986 model year. > >Besides lesser horsepower than the later 3.8's, one of the other differences >is that the 1985 engine uses v-belts. A rarity indeed! The only thing that >is rarer is the 1985 98 with the diesel engine. Yep, that sounds about right. The "upscale" full-sizers (Regency/Park Ave) got downsized and FWD one year earlier than the rest of them (LeSabre/Delta 88). That v-belt thing is just weird, though. Although the 1986 model year of the full-size FWD with the 3.0 V6 is also a strange and unusual beast. - Joe Vahabzaeh
RE: '96 Olds LSS, OT?
At 09:31 AM 5/30/06 -0500, Scott wrote:
>Perhaps I put people to sleep with my long post...no one had a suggestion
>for brighter headlights :(
Actually, I missed the headlight bit when reading the rest of the stuff
about the car, because, oddly enough, I was looking at a classified ad for
a 94 (I think) LSS!
Anyway, I can't remember the name of the brand, but there were headlights I
remember back in my auto parts days, though I think it was when we were ABC
discount auto before AutoZone bought ABC out.
Star-something or other. They were bright-white replacements for the usual
halogen bulbs. The assistant manager had them in his Monte Carlo LS and he
swore by them.
I'll see if I've still got his email address somewhere, and ask what brand
they were.
- Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: Loping V6
At 09:13 PM 5/29/06 -0500, Troy wrote: >Is there anything other than a high performance camshaft the would cause an >engine to lope? This may be a little off topic. My brother bought a 68 >Jeepster, with a 1929 Dodge body on it. It is a Mud Bog truck. It has the >original Buick V6 in it. He doesn't know much about the history of it. It >lopes at low rpm. Kind of jerks when idling around in first gear. I've had a car do that when the carburetor was starting to go bad on me. I'm sure there's many other possible causes, though. - Joe Vahabzadeh
3.8 FWD FI with distributor?!
Ok . . I know I was talking to someone from the list about this, but can't remember who it was, and something came up about the front drive 3.8 V6. I'd been under the impression that all of them were DIS, but someone said they'd seen one with a distributor. Well, I found a photo of one . . STRANGE looking beast, I'll tell ya. The best I can figure from what sparse documentation I've got access to is that, the 1984-1/2 Century and 1985 Ninety-Eight/Park Ave/Electra used the initial versions of this engine, which didn't have a cam position sensor, and used a distributor for ignition, and batch-fire injection, and, I *assume*, a milder cam, and produced only 125 hp. The 1986 to 1988 version got sequential injection, used a cam positon sensor, a DIS system, and a more robust cam, and thus produced 150 hp. Anyhoo . . I've got the underhood photo from an ebay auction I stumbled across, if whoever it was that I was talking to about this is interested. - Joe "I'm lucky I remember my own name" Vahabzadeh
changing a fuel filter on a 3800
All, You know, I've realized that, while I've owned a few fuel-injected GM cars over the past few years, I've never yet actually changed a fuel filter on one of them. So, if I've got an 89 Oldsmobile with the C-code 3800 V6, how do I change the gas filter? I know it's under the car and all, but do I need any special tools? Do I have to take any particular precautions? Is it easy, or are there particular "gotchas" to watch out for? Thanks in advance - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: rebuild update
At 11:35 AM 5/18/06 -0400, Fred wrote: > Bruce wrote: >> He also plans to use my 3000 torque converter >> from the TH350 in the 700R. >> Comments? > > > >The 700R4 takes a lockup converter. Did you have a TH350C in the car or >the original non lockup trans? Using an open converter in a 700R4 >doesn't make any sense to me. Depending on the gearing, fourth gear on >the highway is likely to put you in the converter slip zone. Not good. > An excellent point. I do believe a few companies make various add-ons that will operate the lockup based on either vehicle speed, engine vacuum, or possibly other parameters, or some combination thereof. Some also have an adjustment to tweak how readily the lockup kicks in. So if you have, or can get, a lockup converter, it might be worthwhile to do that and get one of these devices as well. Also, I'd think that the 700-R4 would be a bit less "plug & play" so to speak, than the 200-4R, since the latter can be bolted straight to BOP and Chevy, whereas the 700-R4 is, to the best of my knowledge, a Chevy-only bolt pattern. Furthermore, if you had a TH350, you do not have to change the driveshaft length when switching to a 200-4R. I'm not sure if that's the case with the 700-R4. - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: Some add'l Zinc / Phosphorous info
At 11:47 AM 5/17/06 -0700, Milton wrote: >J, the end of an era. I have been using Kendall GT-1 since September >1963, when it first came out. It was the oil I used in my '59 Olds 394 when >I rebuilt the engine, my first engine. I started her with GT-1 and used GT-1 >in everything ever since. I remember when I was working in ABC Discount Auto in 2003 or so being told that the Kendall oils changed when the company merged with another, or got bought, or something along those lines. The manager (who pretty much knew his stuff) said that, while it was still labeled GT-1, it really wasn't the same anymore. I'd never had a second source to back that info, but it sounded plausible. - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: Moron: When 3 speeds are really 4...
I wonder if he's considering Reverse to be the 4th gear? Or hoping to use
that justification when someone finds out that they got a car with a
3-speed trans? ;)
- Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: Fw: Pink Slips
At 04:43 AM 5/13/06 -0700, Milton wrote: >> ...and always thought anyone who raced for the pink slip was just plain >> nuts. I'm totally with you on this one! I don't have any real experience building a car, or doing a lot of work to one (yet), but anything that I had that had a chance of being semi-fast, I kind of liked. And, frankly, even if I paid only $600 for the car, I'll admit freely that, firstly, I'm a cheap SOB, and secondly, that I'm generally not in a situation where I can readily gamble even a $600 car in an attempt to prove that I'm faster (and I've been in situations where I couldn't afford to risk a hunk-of-junk that I got for *free* in such an endeavor!) And yeah, maybe I've got a soft spot for some of the cars I've had. Maybe even for the not-so-nice ones (yeah, that rusted out Honda was total crap, but it was there for me when I was in a tight spot!) >> And yes, I got into a couple of arguments in the dim past about it. If >> someone didn't like my refusal to race for a pink slip, then he could eat >> my fist. Wha?? There are people out there who insist that you 1) *must* race them, and 2) *must* put up your pink slip when doing so? Egad! What's in the water these people drink?! - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: Old Olds prts Ebay venting
At 01:39 AM 5/14/06 -0400, Randy wrote: > > >What a hassle cause my stuff is not on the shelf at the nightmare store >and NJ people dont like canuck racers? I used to only sell US only. Why? Mere ignorance of the situation. Simply because I didn't know any better. I had been under the impression that anything that has to go across borders would be a major hassle and expense. Well, one Canadian did ask me to reconsider... so I did. Found out that pretty much, except for a bit higher of a shipping cost, going to Canada is almost like shipping within the US. Oh, maybe there's an extra form to fill out, and that's about it. So, I'm guessing that maybe it's the same with other people... simpy not knowing that it would be relatively easy. Now, uh, keep in mind that I've only generally sold fairly lightweight items (mostly computer parts, a few headlight bezels, some books). But, I've shipped to Canada, and to Italy, trouble-free. Not very often, because when I was ebaying regularly, most of my bidders tended to be from the US (paying international shipping on a $10 item can sometimes be a disincentive!), but with rare exception, it's been a mostly positive experience. Non-paying bidders, on the other hand, are a different story... - Joe Vahabzadeh
OT: Adding A/C to a non-AC car?
Ok, I know there's places like Vintage Air and such that'll do so for classics, which seems fairly reasonable since there was always the concept of dealer-installed AC back then. However, can A/C be added to something more modern when it was an option? What if it's a kind of small car? Reason I'm asking is because I might have a potential lead on a low-mileage, one-owner, with maintenance records Honda Civic. However, while A/C was a factory option, I'm told that this car doesn't have it (haven't seen the car yet). Given how nasty the heat and humidity can be in NJ during the summer, and that I want this thing to commute to work with, I'm thinking going without A/C is going to be a problem. So, can A/C be added to this car? Or, if it can be done, is it generally something too expensive or otherwise impractical to bother with? - Joe Vahabzadeh
CAFE? Re: Bumper Mentality: article on SUV's drivers
At 02:30 PM 5/7/06 -0700, Karen wrote: >Also, they could add a really big tax on them (I think >they are exempt from CAFE?). I *believe* this dates back to the mid-late 1970s when they first started tightening fuel economy standards. According to Detroit, it was impossible to meet the new standards. Even more impossible was to apply them to trucks. At the time, there weren't nearly as many trucks on the road, and the concept of the SUV was practically nonexistent, so I guess that's where the exemption started. I'm pretty sure this exemption was also for emissions requirements as well. I'm not sure how it stands today, but I believe that SUVs still are not classified as "passenger vehicles" and therefore don't have to meet CAFE standards. There *is* as I understand it a different CAFE threshold for non-passenger vehicles, but I'm not entirely sure what vehicles this entails; particularly, I'm a bit confused as to what the typical, full-size van is considered. Interestingly, because they're not passenger vehicles, trucks and SUVs didn't have to meet bumper safety standards, either. Some time back (I want to say early or mid 1990s), Consumer Reports made mention of this, pointing out how trucks were sold on the "toughness" image, and yet had what they described as "tin-foil bumpers". I don't know the current state of things . . either whether the government requires tougher bumpers in SUVs/trucks or not, or if not, whether the vehicle manufacturers comply with the passenger-car bumper crash standards. - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: Bumper Mentality: article on SUV's drivers
At 11:38 AM 5/6/06 -0700, Milton wrote: >Maybe SUVs should be called by their true name...SAVs, Suburban Assault >Vehicles or Suburban Attack Vehicles. That might change some minds, but I >doubt it. lol . . thing is, changing the name like that would probably get *more* people to buy 'em. I still shake my head at the two Land Rovers I saw driving in the Little Italy area of Manhattan.... - Joe Vahabzadeh
Bumper Mentality: article on SUV's drivers
A bit of mild obscenity at the beginning. Also, you have to get past the initial "I wanna bash liberals" aspect of the article near the beginning (odd, I thought liberals were those tree-hugger types trying to ban the gasoline engine and rejoicing at $3+/gallon fuel, not the ones driving the SUVs..) Anyway, once you get around the politics, the information that's more or less "hard data" is interesting. Some of it generally well known, some of the less well-known details a bit on the interesting side. I think the case for the personality-type is a bit overblown and painted with a bit too broad of a brush, but sometimes when I drive and see/try-to-avoid some of the drivers of SUVs, I start to swear that it might be true (and I also start to swear in general!) http://www.highbeam.com/library/docfree.asp?DOCID=1G1:95914096 - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: German man seeks HEAD BOLTS- lost his eddress
Chris, My procrastination (in emptying my trash folder) apparently is a blessing this time. Copy of his message and email below (just to be sure I've got the right guy). - Joe Vahabzadeh >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Betreff: Question for item #4635132036 - 71 Olds 1971 Olds 350 >HEADS #7 - 409147 casting GCond >Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 21:41:38 +0200 > >I have concerns to take used ones in this case because I heard these bolts >are known to be overloaded at diesel application right from stock. My head >gasket had a leak as one obviously re-used bolt broke. But, thank you very >much for your information and your offer. I'll come back if I can't locate >new ones. >Stefan > At 09:20 AM 5/4/06 -0400, you wrote: >185-3602 Oldsmobile 403 c.i.d. V8 >$95.95 > >http://www.hi-performance.com/ARPHeadBolts.htm > >Found that... >Now I cannot find the email of the guy that was seeking them. >Digest is erased > >anyone still got that info handy?
Re: Krazy Kalifornia
At 08:30 AM 5/4/06 -0400, Chris Witt wrote: >"Bolt Kits >This all new engine Bolt Kit is the finest made in the world. Call Lynn for >more details. >(Not legal for use or sale on pollution controlled vehicles in the State of >California.) " > >WTH? > >How is changing the BOLTS that hold an engine together going to affect the >emissions of an engine? > >Or, is this just a std disclaimer that every racing item gets, to cover the >butt of the seller? Sounds like a cover-your-butt thing. Or, equally likely, overly-enthusiastic use of copy-paste . . on everything! - Joe Vahabzadeh
OT: So what's Omaha, Nebraska, like?
All, I've got to be positively insane for considering this, especially since I just moved to a new place in NJ . . but . . . There's a potential job opportunity there. So, uh, what's the Lincoln-Omaha Nebraska area like? I guess in terms of things like cost of living, schools, congestion vs lack thereof, etc. The job, should I be considered, is in Omaha itself. I'm not much of a city guy, so I'd be interested in the surrounding suburbs. Upsides? Downsides? Thanks - Joe Vahabzadeh
1989-1993 N-body and transmissions?
Quick question for anyone who might know...
For the 1989-1993 model years (and I know the body changed in 1992) Did the
Skylark, Grand Am, Cutlass Calais and Alero, when equipped with the 3300
V6, ever also get the overdrive automatic, or were they only offered with
the 3-speed auto?
I know the A-body of those years with that motor could have it as an
option, but wasn't sure about the N-body.
Thanks in advance...
- Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: Ebay question
At 07:55 AM 4/25/06 EDT, Tom wrote: >Is this a hustle? >The "Buy it now" price and the starting bid are the same. >You have to apply to the seller to get on the "Pre-Approved Buyers List" >The seller has zero feedback >When I emailed thru ebay to the seller, I got a warning that the seller was also >listed on another Ebay account, and a warning that the seller may not speak English !! > >http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4634717550&fr omMakeTrack=true Judging by the fact that the ad's no longer there, on top of the other information you've given, I'd say the answer is "yes" - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: Re: text too BIG?
>> This is what I see by the time I get near the bottom of the ad: >> >> http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b172/Rocket_Science_442/e02f99c6.jpg >> >> cannot even see ONE WORD on the screen. > > >Ekkk. No way, no how. That ***did*** not happen to me. Strange . . I tried the first of the Olds-based auctions this guy has when I was at work. Nothing at all like that, and my reaction was much like Milton's. That was with Opera 8.54 I come home, and try the first half-dozen or so Olds-based auctions under that seller, and I get the same thing Chris does! This is with Firefox 1.5.0.2 A quick perusal of the HTML reveals that there's an improperly closed h3 tag. Also, it's hard to tell because the HTML is so tangled, but there appear to be a lot of opened tags that aren't closed, then a line at the end where they try to close a whole bunch of h1, h2, h3, h5, center, and font tags all at once. This, I imagine, is confusing the heck out of the Mozilla/Firefox page-rendering engine. If I were to hazard a guess, that is. Opera, and I would assume, Internet Explorer, both are more forgiving of such mistakes. Still, while the HTML is incorrect, I can't imagine why Mozilla/Firefox would keep making things bigger. Someone whose expertise is web-pages/web-development could probably spot the problem more precisely. - Joe Vahabzadeh
Re: Cutlass
At 03:33 PM 4/24/06 -0300, Greg wrote:
>You forgot that the Supreme had lower bright body moldings below which
>there was argent paint regardless of body color, plus a different
>interior. Also in '68 the Supreme came standard with a 4-bbl 350.
I've had it described to me that, for 68-72, the Cutlass (including the S)
was akin to say, the Skylark, Chevelle/Malibu, and LeMans, whereas the
Supreme was more akin to the Monte Carlo and Grand Prix.
Not sure how accurate that is, though.
- Joe Vahabzadeh
