• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


NTX5467 last won the day on April 9 2016

NTX5467 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

889 Excellent

About NTX5467

  • Rank
    Sr Mbr -- BCA 20811
  • Birthday 12/25/1951

Profile Information

  • Gender:

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Lamar, thanks for everything! I know things have been trying at times, but your moderator activities have been appreciated. Looks like you've got the trailer "in training" parked by the pond. By the way, you can get a WiFi Hotspot so you can connect anywhere you can get cell service, if your existing cell phone doesn't have such capabilities. Enjoy whenever possible! NTX5467
  2. Jack, thanks for your comments. For a long time, I'd suspected that much of the BCA had some basis with the AACA way of doing things. Reason was that when the BCA was formed, the AACA was already up and going, successfully, so the AACA could be a good model to emulate. The BCA, being a dedicated marque organization, would need a few more marque-specific tweaks, though, which exist. I know that each car group has it's own membership demographics, just as each marque has its own enthusiast demographics. I have observed that it's fine and good to see what other car groups are doing, but THEN to take the good parts of that and adapt it to the group you're involved with. Trying to make two clubs be/act exactly alike generally doesn't work, unless the same people are in both clubs, by observation. In further considering the Nominating Committee situation, that might tend to put a more formal orientation into things. Even though pre-qualifying potential BOD candidates might merit some consideration. The BCA, though, might tend to be a little more "easy going" than "formal", as many seem to prefer non-judged national meets rather than the judged meets the BCA is known for. Perhaps some "hybrid" BOD candidate qualification system might be devised? To encourage rather than otherwise? Might even make some members realize "I can do that!" Certainly, we might not all like the same eras of Buicks, but we like Bucks and desire to glorify the marque in preservation/restoration/driving our Buicks. With time, some controversial issues will arise, just as there can also be some "bumps in the road". These should be addressed and dealt with in a timely manner, making sound decisions which can carry the club well into the far-off future, rather than "knee-jerk" decisions which could need to be re-done later. EVEN heading-off some things from becoming problems before they get to that point! End result being a smooth-running organization with high levels of customer/member satisfaction that can be a model for other groups to emulate or follow. So, everybody VOTE Willis Bell 20811
  3. There might not be any real orientation of whom can/should be elected to the BCA BOD. The Career Path orientation has a lot of merit and can work well, which takes a lot of pressure off of some club members and can centralize power in a small group of "hands". Just depends upon what the particular organization desires and wants. With the generally low amount of BCA members who vote every year, perhaps the displayed desire to "let others decide", might that be an indication that having a Career Path and Nominating Committee be the new direction for the BCA? Or might some claim such a committee could perpetuate "The Establishment" some seem oriented toward replacing? TWO ways to co look at it. Willis Bell 20811
  4. When talking of "the establishment" and the obvious desire to do away with those involved, I'm reminded of some similar dialogue from the earlier '60s, when some teenagers tended to rebell against "the establishment". As if "the establishment" was completely evil and needed to be de-throned. At that time, "the establishment" was usually "older people", including "parents". In those earlier times, the young 'uns wanted things their way, they wanted something "more hip" than "old fashioned", usually. Their concerns were usually all about them, period. There seemed to be little investigation to really see if what they'd been told about "the establishment" was really as bad as many claimed it to be. "The Establishment" was about continuing historic orientations, rather than "what was new and (perceived to be) better", according to the anti-establishment operatives. Seems that we now have two BCA BOD candidates who are from the same BCA Division. Endorsed by the Editor of that Division's newsletter publication. Preaching to the choir? Of course, all of these things are USA Constitution-protected free speech, for what it's worth. All seem to be anti-establishment candidates, to some extent, if that matters. As for Mr. Oldfield's comments, it should be noted that his comments were made a few months ago, due to publishing lead times. Carefully timed? Coincidence? I'll not make that determination as others seem to be better at it than me. I'll agree, these controversies keep recurring, for what ever reason. As they continue to happen with each BOD election cycle, in many years, from some of the same operatives, it all gets at little "old" seeing it over and over again. As if the more it's repeated, the more credibility these comments might accrue? In some cases, much of these things probably started with the seating of "new blood" in the 1996 BCA National Meet? The "new blood" that was supposed to be the future of the BCA. But after those new BOD members started to work to improve the BCA operations, the complains against what they were trying to do came from some of the same people who advocated their election? And it hasn't stopped since, although some cyclical ups and downs have happened. In the later 1990s, I made some personal inquiries with a few people on the BOD, at the time. Plus some email sharing with BOD member Jeff Brashares. I also invested an hour of MY long distance phone time with Mr. Bill Anderson. In those exchanges, I learned a LOT of information about BCA operations and WHY they had tended to evolve as they did, at that time and later. I also determined that Mr. Brashares was fully aware of some feelings in particular member areas, but he also knew the necessity of making "business decisions" that would be in the club's best interest rather than making decisions based upon emotion. Eventually, "business decisions" were necessary and they were made. The BCA moved on, amid the controversy of some of those decisions. AND I suspect some of those particular controversies are still at play in more recent times! In many cases, "the establishment" is what we tend to make it. AND allow it to be. OR are we seeing a clash of "the establishments"? One in power and one that perceives they need to be? "Teens" against "Parents", so to speak? "Future authoritarians" against "Current authoritarians"? "The Establishment" is also security for the organization. Something that can be relied upon to keep things running in the long term. Keeping the bills paid, etc. Hos can that be a bad thing? But, by observation, some just don't seem to like "the establishment" and want it all changed. To suit their orientations, even if their orientations are claimed to be based in By-Laws issues. But, as I mentioned earlier, those who made the By-Laws can alter, change, or suspend compliance with these same By-Laws. Regarding the BCA By-Laws and Operating Procedures, I believe there have been many reviews/revisions of these documents, over time. Perhaps they might need some updates which have yet to be determined? IF, per chance, the current anti-establishment operatives get a chance to become the NEW Establishment, might some of the same anti-establishment comments they've made then be directed toward them? Would they really operate much differently than those who came before them? Or would it become "more of the same, different people involved"? OR, might campaign promises fade away when reality sets in? So, as with many other political things in our modern society, the challengers seem to be oriented toward tearing down those whom they are challenging ("The Establishment") in order to prove their (The Challengers) in order to prove their point and "win". Any common ground is not admitted to, either. Just "Good" against "Evil". By observation "Good" and "Evil" can have Point of Reference definitions, depending upon one's vantage point. Therefore, statements of fact about WHY a particular orientation is really "Good" or "Evil" should be made and backed-up, so that others can make their own determinations rather than being told what is what, to me. Perhaps the alleged "Evil" operatives are just seeking to defend what they've worked for over the years, not desiring for it to be torn down just because somebody else can? Are the "Good" ones really beneficial to the organization? A constant cycle of Good replacing Evil, with the new-Good becoming the new-Evil with time and generational demographic changes. And cycle repeat. In reality, there's more Good in the BCA many might suspect! There's more common ground among the various groups then they might suspect, too. Just that differences of orientation need to be worked past, by whatever means, to get to that "Better Place", for the mutual benefit of all. But we can't get there with all of these demonstrated controversies! It's going to take BOTH sides being able to understand the orientations of the "other side", in order to achieve some understanding of "What" and "Why" in an open, civil, and respectful discussion. Otherwise, what we now have, one way or another, will be "The Future". Respectfully, Willis Bell 20811
  5. If Candidates X and Y are on the same ballot, how can your opportunity to vote for Candidate Y be suppressed? Or is Candidate Y not on the ballot because Candidate Y was not on the approved list of candidates proposed by a Candidate Committee? What about possible Candidate Z who initially declined to run, but was persuaded to by the Candidate Committee, as it was felt that Candidate Z might be better than either X or Y? Do we need a Candidate Selection/Proposal Committee? I don't feel we do, at the present time. Whom might contact potential candidates for BCA BOD elections, to see if they might consider running for the BOD, might become a discussion point, though. Just some thoughts, Willis Bell 20811
  6. Well, the BOD receives its power from those members who vote. The members express their confidence in their elected officials with their vote. Those who might vote for a candidate that does not get the most votes, still has all membership privileges, no matter what. You take the defeat of your desired candidates and continue being a BCA member or you decline to renew your membership when it comes due. TWO ways of voting, it seems. Or you continue to be a BCA member and enjoy all of the related benefits, letting the BOD do the things they were elected to do. How can we all become friends again, as it appears some are now not, with such seemingly intense divisiveness in the BOD composition . . . past or future? Personally, I'm not really concerned about BCA financial issues. I learned (from a then sitting BCA BOD member) that the BCA had reserves to draw from if needed. I believed that then and believe it now. That means the BCA is in no real danger of non-liquidity, to me. By the same token, no need to draw-down those reserves just because the BCA can! The club should operate in a manner such that reserves keep growing and other operations are paid for with membership and other revenues (like the national meets). To me, that makes good financial sense! Not unlike what we might do in our own personal financial orientations. Financial filings/reports? I trust the appropriate BCA operatives (past and future) to perform these functions when appropriate. Particularly the Federal forms, as the Form 990 for non-profit organizations. Smaller non-profit organizations (as all car clubs tend to be) do the smaller and shorter E-990 Postcard filing. The penalty for non-compliance? Loss of tax-exempt status if not filed for three consecutive years, last time I checked. These Form 990 forms would also be public records, with access by appropriate requests. So, it would appear that such information could be obtained, possibly with a small fee, if desired. I also know that when a car dealership parts manager leaves, another one is hired to replace the out-going manager, OR in the case of a dealership buy/sell situation, a parts inventory is performed. Many times, by a third party. Or existing employees, at the pleasure of the buy/sell management. Independent of any yearly inventory counts or spot checks during the fiscal year. NO implications of wrong-doing, just a "levelling" of sorts to verify where things are (or possibly should have been) at the time of the change in ownership/operations. Yet there can be a perception that an auditor that "finds no dirt" isn't doing their job, no matter what. Therefore, the BCA financial issues are not on my radar, but operational dynamics usually are. Like how well various sections of BCA operations interact with each other in the short term AND long term orientations. Many of which can/are related to BOD decisions and activities. The concerns I've had, I've respectfully brought them to the attention of BCA operatives, who gave me an acceptable answer, each time. As long as they were happy, I was happy. End of that discussion. Yet others seem to have failed in similar situations. So, with such a small percentage of total BCA members who actively vote for BOD candidates each year, some of the various factions within the BCA CAN tend to exert their influence upon who's elected to the BOD by getting those aligned with them to vote for their approved candidates. Can't hurt, so why not do it? Or a large BCA chapter who's supporting a candidate from their group or region? The smaller the ultimate number of participating members, the easier it is for such "aligned members" to become elected to the BCA. Or even from a particular BCA Division. It's all possible, one way or another. How a member might feel about these things would depend upon their particular vantage point. So, please advocate that ALL BCA members read the BCA BOD Candidate articles. Make the best informed decision from those articles. Some members, from their following and participation in these forums might also use postings from some of those candidates to also modulate their voting orientations, too. And THEN place your votes according to the specified directions on the ballot. Then, we'll see how it goes. Y'all enjoy! Willis Bell 20811
  7. Well, when we want to "do business", we usually like to do it "with our friends", or friends of friends with a somewhat known background in what we need to get done. Nothing wrong with that! Or we look in some "approved list" for people/businesses with a proven track record. Or we just go "pot luck", close our eyes, and put a finger on an appropriate Yellow Pages page. What's the best way to do it? Willis Bell 20811
  8. Many car clubs have their Candidate Committee, where FEW members might ever consider running for an office. Some might also see that as cronyism, which it might be in some respects, but it might be a more efficient means to get people to consider running for office, too. TWO ways to look at it BUT . . . if you consider "The CLUB" rather than "otherwise", such a committee can be beneficial to ensure that ALL BOD members are viable contributors to the group's future. That a set of "minimum specifications" are met in a potential candidate's attributes of being known to work for the good of the TOTAL group, rather than otherwise, for example, PLUS some gumption in business proceedings. TWO items which can out-weigh how many Buicks a candidate might have owned in their lifetime. Loyalty to the marque can be important, but should not be a significantly-determining factor in being a good BCA BOD candidate, to me. Willis Bell 20811
  9. "Two divisions" implies, to me, two opposing orientations/points of view, and the "twain don't meet", unfortunately. Certainly, there will always be some "divisions" in orientations, BUT at THE BOD level of things, the MAIN FOCUS should be not on personal agendas, but on the ENTIRE BCA's health and well-being, as a part of the SOLUTION rather than "the problem". By observation, some don't really understand that, only seeking to further ally with those of similar mindsets, instead, which can keep the BCA on the road it's been on for some time. As my memory seems to indicate, there have almost always been some contentious groups in the BCA, since the 1996 elections, at least. Always something, whether it's a simple $5/yr increase in national dues, whether national meets should be judged, "racing", or more serious issues. Always something of some kind. In some cases, even attempts to "stack the BOD" by some of these groups, it's seemed. Seeking to force one group's agenda over another group's orientations. Yet these things have not really benefited the complete BCA, typically, only made any real progress toward solving future issues (before they became issues) more difficult, by observation. Some might interpret their obstinance as "leadership"? Which seems to me to be "leadership that goes nowhere". Solves no problems, either, except for those involved, rather than the complete composite organization of the BCA itself. Some want to change things, which is fine as far as that might go. Everything changes in real time, by observation. Staying "ahead of the curve" is better than "knee-jerk reactionarism" to what's immediately ahead, by observation. Helps keep "stress" out of our lives! As in the workplace, knowing WHY any change might be needed is important, rather than "leading by edict" from management. Especially when "management" is located "above the cloud line" from where work actually takes place. "At the bottom of the hill", it's easy to see where things come from. THE KEY is to make the most benefits happen out of the current divisive orientations, put it all to bed, then work toward a more balanced/productive approach to making the BCA work as well as it can for the vast majority of its membership. A membership which greatly enjoys the monthly BUGLE and what it contains. A membership with vibrant and viable local chapters, although in a time of aging members and "maintaining" membership levels. Personally, I suspect that many perceive the BOD as somewhat operating in a vacuum of Internet-based meetings. Where members are not advised of future decisions in a manner to allow for real input to the BOD prior to their ultimate vote on such things. Or are we in an orientation of "The membership elected ME and my orientations, so that's where I'm headed in making decisions that suit MY orientations"? "NO compromise, either!" Not dissimilar to what some national politicians have alluded to? Not really understanding that they also represent, by default, those that didn't vote for them, too. Just some of my thoughts, Willis Bell 20811
  10. You did the right thing, all things considered. Having piece of mind rather than anxiety in anticipation that something might happen later on, counts for a lot. Considering how things were done back then, they were probably as much for location purposes (as well as the manifold studs) as for sealing the ports to the manifold. Either ONE of those location methods would be fine, but to have TWO would be better. The difference between 20 ft/lbs and 25 ft/lbs of torque is very minor with normal threads. What you might do is re-check the torque after a few hot-cold engine cycles to make sure it stays at the recommended level. More piece of mind, later on. Enjoy! NTX5467
  11. In some of the self-learning EFI discussions, some have mentioned the relationship to the type of intake manifold. Dual plane or single plane versions. Not sure where THAT came from! Or WHY? The self-learning basically self-contained EFI systems are a very neat idea. Being a simple installation situation. Add the electric high pressure fuel pump in the fuel supply line system, whether with a complete modern-style module in a modified fuel tank, a separate inline pump of suitable EFI specs, or the reservoir/pump situation in the engine compartment (with no other modifications needed to the fuel supply system!), then the new EFI unit as a carburetor replacement should not really matter what type of intake manifold it's mounted on, it seems to me. Float bowls are replaced by fuel injection units laid horizontally, spraying into the throttle bore or supplying fuel to annular discharge venturi clusters. Definitely a more precise way to do things, computer controlled via oxygen sensors (with newer ways of not needing to be welded-to the exhaust down pipes. MANY things have improved since the earlier units. When Holley had their original TBI EFI units, somewhat OEM-based at the time, but which came with huge cut-to-fit wiring harnesses, sensors, inline pump, control module that as "analog adjustable" (to which you could add an oxygen sensor kit for full computer control to the basic module). There's also a GM OEM-based middle '80s DIY kit like First Born built for his vintage Buick. Source everything through the auto supplies, with a reman GM TBI unit and computer module. They burn a "chip" for your application. I personally like that approach. There's probably an illustrative thread in these forums, somewhere, chronicling what it took and I recall the fuel economy improvements it yielded, back then. To me, this is a more realistic situation as the CFM of the TBI u nit is much appropriate for a stock vehicle. Whereas most of the aftermarket EFI units are over 750cfm AND also open all four throttle valves at the same time. No "primary" or "secondary" items, it appears. I shied away from the 1000cfm early 4 bbl EFI units from Holley just as "too much" air flow. Remembering how an engine would bog when the 4bbl secondaries opened too quickly. The newer self-learning systems need good basic programming to start their process. It seems that many end up setting them a bit too rich, to me. Modern fuels included. Some can also control spark timing, using the distributor only for its distribution purposes rather than a specific advance curve. Which also leads me to suspect these advance curves fit some generic orientations more appropriate for some brands/designs of OEM engines than others? PLUS, knowing the OEM camshaft specs is an important part of the programming mix too! I know there have been many magazine articles on the joys and praises of these newer EFI carb-replacement systems. I like the more precise fuel metering characteritics myself Especially if the coast-down fuel mixture is similar to the OEMs with a "99mpg instant fuel economy reading", rather than the somewhat richer mixture a carb can produce in the same situation. Which can yield improved economy in that ONE operating parameter. I know the resulting "driving and idling" air/fuel mixture should be more finely atomized than with a carb, typically, which should allow the fuel economy improvements which First Born experienced. But unless the intake manifolding is upgraded to something that provides more even cyl-to-cyl mixture distribution (as modern OEM port EFI systems do), then some of the original performance/economy situations of the original carb system still exist (something which First Born ALSO addressed). IF you look at the www.Holley.com sebsite, you'll discover that they offer a large number of self-learning EFI units. Some brands which they bought after they also had their own units on the market. Plus some of their own which came later! Most are oriented toward a high-horsepower "big inch" "performance" motors. Up to 1000cfm, when the original stock carb was more like 600crm! Bigger isn't always better, in this area. The prior OEM TBI units look more archaic as time progresses and they tend to be over-shadowed by the latest and greatest bolt-on carb replacement EFI units. Carburetors WE know how to deal with. With one of these self-learning EFI units, you are left with somebody else's programming skills and orientations in using such, with some being more user-friendly than others. I don't know that many can really determine what's best for their application, having to rely upon the judgment/orientations of others in the process. OR what some car magazine recommends! In this modern age of things, it seems that many of the programming data is generic rather than specific. It would be easier to be able to do a menu by Make, Model, Model year, Engine size,, Manual or Automatic Transmission, and type of ignition system. ALL of that information should be out there, but FEW owners/mechanics/techs really know where to find reliable information on the OEM camshafts, compression ratios, and such. BUT I would think these things could be a part of the basic computer module's internal data base rather than somebody guessing about these things, with mediocre results! THEN . . . if a cam change has been done, or a different size carburetor, lower rear axle ratio/tire size combination, or other engine design/specs which were changed from stock specs could be another section to better supply the self-learning base computer with good information "at start-up". Similarly, the idle mixture could have a baseline of 12.7 to one and the cruise fuel mixture could have a default setting of 14.7 to one, as OEM carbs were oriented toward. As with many current OEM systems, the end-O2 readings could be used to compensate for E10 or E15 rather than E0. Some might also compensate for E85 fuels (consumer or race gas versions), too. THEN, advise the customer of specific "drive cycles" to better fine-tune the basic settings for bear results. Several off-idle "easy" and "3/4 throttle applications, how many minutes of cruise at 55mph or 70mph cruising on level ground, how many minutes of hot base idle, for example. Similar to, but not quite as involved as current OEM "drive cycles" to reset all of the sensors in the computer monitoring system. Everything can still be plug-n-play, but advise the customer how to best expedite the self-learning process by other than just "driving around". Perhaps some brands are already there? Perhaps not?! What the EFI systems should provide is better cold start and off-idle throttle response. The computerized "idle air control" should make those things work better for the driver. No more "flameouts" or "throttle patting" to keep a cold engine running, it is hoped. Which can make the older vehicles easier to deal with by people not used to driving a vehicle with a carburetor! Plus better general fuel economy, which has been highly-elusive for some owners, it seems! We can't put a definite price on the hopefully improved drivability of any aftermarket self-learning EFI system, but installing one for better fuel economy CAN take a lot of driving to make it cost effective on fuel bill decreases alone. Especially on a limited-use vintage vehicle OR on a vehicle that gets driven 100 miles/day, every day of the work week. With the correct (generally learner, OEM-style) fuel mixture settings, then oil change intervals might be extended due to a decrease in fuel dilution of the motor oil. But with many of the complete systems still in the $2500.00+ range, not including labor, even with some (generally) stock replacement carburetors in the $500.00 range, that's still a BIG $$$ gap for the perceived benefits of a self-learning EFI of varying application orientations. YOUR judgment call on which way to go AND what other engine changes might be needed to "get there", but alleged best results. Now, to their credit, Holley has come out with some application-specific carb replacement systems. The latest one is the 1.25" throttle bore 2bbl EFI system to replace the Carter BBD 2bbl carbs on some smaller Jeep engines. A good choice where the Jeep will see lots of off-road excursions into the varied terrain of "rock crawling". Something where carb float bowls and such can't really handle well. The announcement of this system was greeted with open arms by the Jeepers, but also some Chrysler enthusiasts had vehicles which used the Carter BBD 2bbl carbs (think millions of Chrysler 318 engines for many decades). Some of the Chrysler people had to be remined that the Carter BBDs on their 361 and 383 engines were the 1.56" throttle bore versions, with a different base plate flange size, so the Jeep units would not fit, unfortunately. It would seem simple to use a larger TBI unit to fit these other Chrysler engine applications, it would seem? LOTS of things to consider! Enjoy! NTX5467
  12. I understand the "spares" situation, but if what you have is still working well, then why bother? The 401 should be buildable, if it needs it, but if there's a hole in the crankcase, then that's another deal. As I recall, you have a better engine/trans combination than a '64 Riviera would have had anyway, other than the difference in engine size. Down here in TX, they have a "Claimer Rule" at many tracks. Anybody can purchase the race winner's engine for a specified amount of money, about $500.00 last I heard (a while back) to decrease the possibility of somebody having a $10K engine that wins races over a $2000.00 junk yard rebuild, in the same class. So, few people want to put that kind of money into an engine that somebody else could purchase for little of nothing. My machine shop operative has several circle track racer customers. Most of their motors go an entire season "intact". I saw one, at the end of the season, come back in for a winter refresh. When the bearing caps were removed, only light scuffing was evident. Plenty good enough to go another year of competition. I asked how that was possible? Good oil control was the answer. Pan baffling and an oil scraper, matched and finessed, were the answer. Be that as it may. . If you feel the need for the extra 24 cubic inches, go for it. Just don't over-spend for them. The seller may be correct about it being a running engine, but it would be best to buy "a core" rather than a museum piece for garage display. By observation, used car parts are not a good investment UNTIL that somebody that perceives they need them come around, sometime, by observation. No matter what they came out of or how allegedly desirable they used to be. Just my observation. I know there's a lot of hype about self-learning EFI. It should work great, but apparently there are some combinations that don't. I've messaged some of them, inquiring, on different forums. IF you want it to look good, that's fine. But to me, spending about $2500.00 for parts to do it right, and then it doesn't really return any greater fuel economy for that investment (as a fuel'/air mixer, just as a carb does), that's going to take a lot of driving to receive any return on that investment. The "problem childs" seem to only get much WORSE fuel economy, by observation. Like 8mpg on a good day! Not fully known "Why", either. Some have easier set-ups for the computer functions than others do, by observation. So, I'm leaning more toward a Street Demon 659 or an Edelbrock AVS2 for updated carburetion, if desired. One former poster in here had his '67 Electra 430 changed over to a name-brand self-learning EFI system. He concurred that the 430 would produce (as others posted in here, several years ago) highway mpg of 20mpg. Now, he claims it does good to get 8mpg cruising. For an over $3K investment? Programming issues and variations have been tried to no avail, it seems. No real solution, last I heard. And there is another similar situation in a Chrysler forum, too. All in the basic programming, it seems. I would think the self-learning situation would take care of those things, but apparently getting the original parameters "right" is key to just what is "learned" later on? End result, I'll stay with carbs I know about until further notice. In some street machines, where things worked right, mpg increases from about 14mpg to 15.5mpg on cruises was all mpg increased. Yes, a little better cold drivability, etc., but still a good chunk of change tor little actual "fuel mixer" improvements, to me. Ignition upgrades are pretty easy to do. Even required with many EFI kits! Just some thoughts, NTX5467
  13. As drum brake linings are NOT in contact with the drum when the wheels are turning, unlike disc brakes where the friction pads ARE touching the brake rotor to some degree as the car moves, the longer the car drives should not cause the brake noise to get worse, only stopping situations might do that. IF there are any squeals, as noted, it's usually due to a "hard spot" on the lining. Sometimes, scuffing up the friction area of the shoe can get rid of or decrease these hard spot areas . . . worth a try. THEN get a brake shoe caliper to get the shoes adjusted with. You set it to the drum inner diameter and then adjust the shoes to match that, with the drums removed. The Buick 340 is probably as good of an engine as anybody else built back then. Hard to understand how an additional 10 cid could make the 350 a much-improved version of its prior self? Granted, in a time when 2-speed automatics were on the way out, being replaced by 3-speed automatics, the 2-speed will always be a little slower off the line, even with the Switch-Pitch feature, BUT it's also known that many big-time drag racers use Chevy PowerGlide-based transmissions . . . due to the fact it takes less power to run it, meaning more power to the driving wheels. Something of a trade-off, it seems. So, to me, the 340 2-speed automatic LeSabre makes a good drive-around car that can be pretty decent in the performance department. Flaky thing is that almost every newer 4 cyl with a "jillion-speed" automatic can easily beat an older car from the red light. Just as a 4-speed automatic trans vehicle (with a lower low gear ratio) can beat the normal 3-speed automatic vehicle, similarly, not allowing for the usually deeper rear axle ratio of the OD automatic vehicle. NOW, what it can do is accelerate "smartly" off the line with a 1/2 throttle punch, NOT WOT off-idle as many seem to want to do. The rear axle ratio probably is something like a 2.93, which can allow lower engine rpms at cruise (for better fuel economy with the generally smaller 2bbl that Buick used on the smaller V-8s back then). Not sure what parts the shop was looking for OR if they were seeking to find a used rear axle in the salvage yards. IF they were looking for possible repair parts, then no auto supply will have them in stock as they are not the more common Chevy axle, I suspect. And, sometimes, shops can claim "no parts available" for a job that might tie-up shop space for longer periods of time or that they don't feel comfortable doing, by observation . . . just an advisory. Be that as it may. Now, there were some differences in model years of Buick rear axles, which might be a factor, too. I'd have to do more research in this area. I've got a '68 LeSabre that might need some of those things, too. Correctly diagnosing the noise you're hearing can be important in proposing what is needed to fix it. I suspect that bearings, seals, and gaskets are the main things, with the differential spider gears and/or ring gear and pinion being the "deeper" items. But for now, as long as it isn't making serious sounds back then (like some metallic items that don'g want to work together), possibly no immediate repairs will be needed. In some of those older axle designs, a slight hum was somewhat normal, but if it gets louder than a "background sound", then it's time to get more serious about seeing what's going on. Has the rear axle lube been changed in recent history? This is one lube that's generally considered "life time", so it just got checked and not suctioned out and replaced with fresh lube, typically. If there is a rear cover to remove, then that removal can be the time to replace the lube AND look at the condition of the differential internals. So, enjoy the car for what it is and the joy it brings to you and others. The brake sound probably needs to be diagnosed and addressed for a better driving experience, when funding exists for such things. Keep us posted, NTX5467
  14. I concur. check all wires in the circuit, the related grounds, etc. One reason to get the FACTORY wiring schematic and carefully follow it through (on paper) and then check the wiring on the car itself. What sort of incorrect activity is it doing? NTX5467
  15. With power drum brakes, it's always good to have everything adjusted correctly. That way, for example, either the two rear wheels will lock up if the front's don't lock up also. Quite dramatic and attention-getting when all four tires are locked-up, smoking, and sliding the car to a quick stop. Modern anti-locks make funny noises and aren't much fun, usually, BUT they have their advantages, too. NTX5467