• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


NTX5467 last won the day on April 9 2016

NTX5467 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,061 Excellent

1 Follower

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. ANY later version of Dexron/Mercon would be friction modified for lock-up torque converters, which I would suspect to be overkill for a DynaFlow. BUT the much better base stocks and additive package make it a much better fluid for durability and long life. Plus it's available "everywhere" at decent prices, which is even better. Enjoy! NTX5467
  2. Not sure where the Wiki information was sourced. I do know that GM has always claimed that Dexron VI is backward-compatible back to the first HydraMatic (1949 or so?). They've never wavered from that. BUT an interesting product appeared in the ACDelco Chemical/Fluid catalog a year or two ago, a "Dexron III-type" (non-syn blend) fluid appeared under a non-Dexron III name. GM ceased to license Dexron III fluid when Dexron VI fluid came out. The Dexron HP fluid, I believe, is a full-syn fluid that's designed more for the later 6+ speed automatics with lock-up torque converters (which they seem to modulate between non- and partial-lockup, in particular situations). I believe there is a Mobil 1 variant of that, too? The current syn fluid for GM automatics is about $45.00/gallon, or more. NO real need for anything that fancy in a DynaFlow! Or even anything with a higher-spec than the prior Dexron III fluid. No operational need for Type F, either, fwiw. I suspect that any Dexron-family fluid would have a much better additive package than ANY oil available when the DynaFlow was designed and built. But no real need for anything "fancier" than Dexron III. EACH of the Dexron-family variants, progressing through time from their initial introduction, had some particular issue they were seeking to address/fix/prevent, all the way to the end of Dexron III. Much of the confusion can quickly dissolve when you limit the possible fluids to the pre-6 speed automatic time frame, fwd or rwd. Which should pare things down to a "dino" or "synthetic" Dexron III-spec fluid. OR, you can seek out some of the Type A Suffix A fluid that pre-dates any Dexron fluid. Your judgment call. See below. Sorry for the poor "paste" functions. Enjoy! NTX5467 10-9243 Dexron VI Full Synthetic Automatic Transmission Fluid - 1 qt ACDelco DEXRON-VI Full Synthetic Automatic Transmission Fluid is the most recent release in the well-established DEXRON series of automotive transmission fluids. It provides more consistent shift performance, even in extreme conditions, and degrades less over time. ACDelco DEXRON-VI Full Synthetic Automatic Transmission Fluid helps automatic transmissions last longer and perform better. ACDelco DEXRON-VI Full Synthetic Automatic Transmission Fluid is suitable for use in vehicles that specify the following requirements: fully licensed and approved by GM, recommended for use in GM transmissions model year 2006 and newer calling for DEXRON-VI Automatic Transmission Fluid (replaces DEXRON-III and DEXRON-II(E), or recommended for any other vehicle manufacturer that calls for DEXRON-VI, III, or II(E). ACDelco DEXRON-VI Full Synthetic Automatic Transmission Fluid is not for use in CVT (Continuously Variable Transmissions) or DCT (Dual Clutch Transmissions) which require specialized fluids. ? Features & Benefits Backward compatible with previous DEXRON automatic transmission fluids and can be used as a much-improved replacement for older vehicles/transmissions originally using previous DEXRON fluids Improved performance over previous DEXRON fluids in: friction durability, viscosity stability, aeration and foam control, and oxidation resistance Potential to enable improved fuel economy and longer transmission life Provides for extended drain intervals Brand Information ACDelco Automatic Transmission Fluids (ATFs) prolong the life of transmission components and provide the protection you need to keep your transmission running smoothly. ACDelco offers a diverse selection of ATFs to fit the needs of various vehicles and transmission types. ACDelco Automatic Transmission Fluid is specifically designed to maximize fluid change intervals and function effectively under a wide range of external conditions ACDELCO TYPE iii(H) ATF 10-9240 close Type III (H) Automatic Transmission Fluid - 1 qt ACDelco ATF Type III (H) is a premium quality automatic transmission fluid for use in a variety of passenger cars and light trucks. It is formulated with select base oils and additives to meet the heavy demands placed on automatic transmissions, including the generation of electronically controlled transmissions. ACDelco ATF Type III (H) is recommended for the following uses: when DEXRON-III(H), DEXRON-III(G), DEXRON-II(E), DEXRON-II, or Type A Fluids are required, in all automatic transmissions built by GM that do not require DEXRON-VI, and can also be used in some hydraulic and compressor systems where excellent low temperature flow ability is required. Features & Benefits · Good frictional characteristics and wear protection provide enhanced cold temperature performance, excellent friction retention, and smooth shifting · High oxidation resistance fortifies against rust and corrosion and provides for longer fluid change intervals · Wide range of seal compatibility - can be used in an extensive variety of vehicles/transmissions · Meets requirements for foam protection and protects against metal-to-metal friction and wear within the transmission Brand Information ACDelco Automatic Transmission Fluids (ATFs) prolong the life of transmission components and provide the protection you need to keep your transmission running smoothly. ACDelco offers a diverse selection of ATFs to fit the needs of various vehicles and transmission types. ACDelco Automatic Transmission Fluid is specifically designed to maximize fluid change intervals and function effectively under a wide range of external conditions.
  3. The original fluid for all automatic transmissions, back in the '50s was "Type A" fluid. Probably similar to the hydraulic oil of the times, except for viscosity and additives which would make it a better "fit" for an automatic transmission. Type F was a Ford-spec fluid from about '68 until into the later '70s, when they started to use Dexron-family fluids. The difference in Type F and Dexron was their friction characteristics upon INITIAL clutch/band apply. According to an article in "CAR LIFE" magazine, back then, Ford and GM were headed toward that desired "smooth shift", but went about it differently. Ford designed their fluid for a more aggressive initial apply, but then put it with clutch material that was a bit "over-loaded, so that slippage would occur, by design, on that initial apply period. GM went the other direction, putting in more frictional material capacity, then designing Dexron for a bit more slippage upon initial apply to compensate. BUT once the frictional materials were fully applied, no slippage happened. The only slippage was on the initial apply period, not afterward. Many performance types would use Type F in their GM automatics, rather than Dexron, for a firmer shift. Probably not unlike how the B&M Trick Shift atf acted, but for less money. GM claims that any of their Dexron-family atf products are backward-compatible to their first automatic transmissions. Even the current semi-syn Dexron VI fluid. In the case of the DynaFlow, ANY fluid would probably work fine. Type A fluid is still around, but you have to look for it. The earlier Dexron fluid is still around too, normally as "Multi-Make" designated, so you have to read the back of the bottle to see if the main application is for GM products, rather than imports. Dexrom VI is very available, but has a better longevity than any prior Dexron fluid. Enjoy! NTX5467
  4. That list of things to do kind of seems a little ambitious for just one weekend? But motivation and "engagement" always help. Laying on the ground, under a correctly-supported vehicle can be stress relief. Plus laying there can be a great opportunity to stretch and get the spine re-aligned! But after a while, getting vertical again will need to happen. Rolling over and then progressively getting on "all fours", then using hands to steady one's self as vertical is slowly achieved again. Always good when a plan comes together! Keep us posted on the progress! NTX5467
  5. Now that we know you have a 1/2 AFB rather than the OEM 2bbl, is the exhaust system still the OEM-spec single exhaust? No, your F-140 EcoBoost is not a good "baseline" for comparison between how it acts and how the Buick acts on the same road or road speed. I don't know that there are any real issues with the DynaFlow. With the carb change, how did you alter the trans linkage from the carb? Is it now adjusted/configured as it would have been on an OEM 364 AFB? Perhaps, rather than a 750cfm AFB, it needs something more like the 500cfm model instead. NTX5467
  6. There should be a thread in here, somewhere, by First Born when he originally converted his Straight 8 to EFI, using a GM 2bl TBI unit on his engineered intake manifold. The reason for the adapter (as the Holley Tech operative mentioned) is that the bolt pattern on the 4bbl for the 322 was a smaller bolt pattern than the '58+ "Holley Pattern". Personally, I like the idea of using what First Born originally used, which used a common GM 2bbl TBI unit, with the common mid-'80s GM computer and a custom PROM for his application. By observation, the GM TBI (as in '87+ Chevy pickup truck 305/350, or the larger one for the 454, all 2bbls) are simple, easy to fix, AND available in the aftermarket. The 305/350 units are 1.56" throttle bore diameter (as most mid-'60s 2bbls were) and the 454 unit is 1.69" throttle bores. A KEY part of these systems is the fuel pump, which must put out 55psi or a bit more. IF there is less than 53psi, the injectors will not fire. Has to put our that pressure, period, which means an expensive in-line pump (which was in the initial Holley TBI EFI kits, made by Walbro). In more recent times, Edelbrock has a "sump" system where the normal fuel pump is used to supply fuel to an under hood "sump", in which the high pressure pump to supply the TBI is located. Might need a return line to the tank, too? Much of the speed signals for the aftermarket EFI (as in Holley and similar) comes from the distributor, which MUST be of a particular type to work. Which makes the later throttle body EFI kits that will also handle the ignition functions pretty neat and "all-inclusive". ALSO be aware that you purchase the base unit (for an attractive price), BUT will also need the Install KIt to finish the job! Most now seem to be just under $2K now. So, trying to justify the upgrade just on fuel economy alone won't work. It will run cleaner, need an O2 sensor bung, plus other things by the time you're done. Just remember that the fuel atomization will be better than a 1950s carburetor, which is probably where the fuel economy increase and such comes from. But then the new CArter AVS2 carb will be better, too. In any event, to me, it would be better to be able to bolt the TBI unit directly to the intake manifold, rather than use a "larger to smaller" spacer/adapter. Better air flow dynamics. The GM TBI unit is a 3-bolt pattern, but putting a 2bbl on a 4bbl intake would probably work better, air flow dynamics wise. In that case, a flat piece of metal to match the TBI bolt pattern and holes could fit onto a 322 4bbl intake with the throttle holes removed to have one large hole instead, at the mounting pad. And then there would be the issue of which air cleaner would fit when you're done. Just some thoughts, NTX5467
  7. I've seen the Prius-application mentioned a few times, BUT there are several GM applications that use the electric power steering, too. Started on the Malibus back in about 2008 and later. Plus all of the later-model pickups. It's not an add-on to the normal column per se, but has an integral electric motor that connects to the column via a toothed rubber belt, I believe. Not sure what steering wheel position sensors AND modules that might be involved in the mix, though. ALSO check in the street rod realm of aftermarket steering columns. Such as IDIDIT and possibly Flaming River. Everything should be under the dash, I suspect. I also suspect that you could adjust the level of boost, if desired? Which is where the control modules might come in. Being that it's a steering column item, it will NOT change the number of turns, lock-to-lock, of the existing steering system. And, most probably, your vehicle would need to be operating on 12 volts, I suspect. On the Malibus, the part of the column that has the power unit is between the firewall and the lower instrument panel housings. Not sure what steering wheels would be needed to complete the installation, other than a stock-application for the vehicle the column would have been in initially. So something aftermarket might be better than an OEM-re-purposed column. In the first year or two of the GM OEM pickup truck units, I could sometimes feel a "low boost" area just off center, sometimes, like when a long sweeping curve was being driven, but the current ones don't seen to have that. I DO like the feel and operation and the fact that response is flawless, no matter how fast the wheel is turned. Just some thoughts, NTX5467
  8. 1965 Wildcat used the THM400 behind a Buick 401 engine. One of our chapter members had his '62 LeSabre converted to the THM400, using a trans and related items from that particular '65 Wildcat. He was surprised at the difference it made. His then-teenaged son then wanted to drive the car, but was not allowed to do so. Just a plain swap, as I recall. Not sure if the same would work on a '61 vs. '62, though. Be advised that there are TWO bolt patterns on a THM400 and most other GM automatics. The common "Chevy" pattern and the "Buick-Olds-Pontiac-Cadillac" pattern. Which is why starting with a Buick-case THM400 is important. PLUS getting the related "switch-pitch" switches for the carb linkage. Enjoy! NTX5467
  9. Details on "the hill" . . . length from the base to the top AND elevation change? How much extra throttle is needed to maintain road speed, as if it was on "cruise control"? What is the time duration of the bottom-to-crest event? At what general elevation is the base terrain in that area, above sea level? Presuming you have a "modern car", how does it act in the same situation? If you have the cruise control set to the 70mph road speed, keeping your foot on the accel pedal, what happens when you reach the crest of the hill, at that same throttle position? In general, at that road speed, the torque converter should be "tight", but determining where the ":kickdown" (i.e., switch-pitch" in the torque converter) happens might need a factory service manual to determine. How would the car respond if, on level ground, you applied the same amount of throttle, at the starting road speed, over the same distance? While you have the car on the lift/jack stands for the atf change, DO take that opportunity to check the rubber in the fuel lines . . . tank to carb. IF they have not ever been changed, still having a pre-1992 set of rubber lines, then change ALL of those, too! Put new, ethanol-resistant rubber fuel lines in their place. Also tap on the muffler and exhaust system, looking for any difference in the sound, which might indicate any loose baffles in the muffler or any pipes which might be internally collapsed . . . just to see what's there, more than anything else. While the NailHead Buick V-8 has a very strong torque output, you are also dealing with a 300cfm 2bbl carb on an engine that's running close to or at the rated torque peak. I mention that as a point of reference issue more than anything else. What did the spark plugs you removed look like? Color of the ceramic insulator, in particular? White-to-light tan colored or sooty and darker? How many miles/month has the car been driven lately? Just curious. My suspicion is that what you're experiencing COULD be completely normal, but do make sure everything is operating "to spec". IF a friction material (clutches or band) was slipping, the atf would probably be darker red and have a "cooked"/burnt smell to it. IF the atf fluid level is checked when the car has been run for at least 10 miles at highway speed, then again after "the hill", does it change much? Fluid heated by internal slippage would expand and cause a higher level on the trans dipstick, usually. But if there might be some internal seals which have worn, then that might be indicated by "lazy" engagement or similar? Please advise, NTX5467
  10. ONE thing in the NorthStar vs. Buick 3800 comparison is OIL CHANGE COSTS!. You might have to pay for that extra 1/2 quart the Buick V-6 doesn't need, but you DO pay for all of the 6 or 7 qts of oil the NorthStar (and many other newer engines) need. Better fuel economy and lower oil change costs . . . ADVANTAGE BUICK! These things might tend to be lost on younger buyers, but not on the "fixed income" more vintage owners. For whom operating costs can be important. Although EVERY Buick V-6 owner can appreciate them, too. Look at all of the complexity in newer engines that it takes to match the 3800SC horsepower output, while generally having less lower-rpm torque (which is where the 8-speed automatics come in, to fill that torque output void). NTX5467
  11. I fully understand desires, dreams, and such. But I also understand the realities of being in "the service" and having to move every few years, as a complicating factor. Plus, over the years, I've seen seemingly good cars be disassembled for repairs/restorations and that's as far as they ever get. Oh, and have seen "life events" and growing families, happen too. To me, the main issue would be the periodic residential moves. If you've not finished with those, then it might be best to sell it and go on. Obviously, your family focus should be on "the kids", for at least another decade or so (sounds like a long time, doesn't it?). Plus a certain amount of focus on your job that pays the fills for everybody. Not to mention being able to park all of your daily vehicles in the same garage, if needed. But there can be work-around for that. Let's say you sell the car for what you can get for it, you've lost money. IF you find a good, secure off-site storage place for it, it costs money. IF you sell it, what will fill that void in your life and dreams? At what cost? Will/does your spouse consider it a nuisance that is tolerated? Will the money from the sale be used for something needed in the long term??? Just as being married or single, EVERYTHING has its own benefits and costs. Just depends upon which way you might desire to go. Looking to the future, though. In another local car club, we observed as younger, single, members got married, still coming to the meetings. Then kids happened and their projects got put on hold. We didn't see them as often and their membership lapsed. Several years later, they'd show up again, wife and kid(s) in tow. With great smiles by everybody! We were as glad to see them as they were to see us, which I considered a great thing for all involved. Their wives were welcomed by the other wives, too, which furthered things along, too! MOst has somewhat stable jobs, so no periodic residential changes. They just threw some blankets on the car and let it sleep. Never losing sight of their dreams AND relaying the love of their vehicles to their kids! IF periodic moves might be part of your employer's plan, then that deal might be a central part of the decision process. Where might your next moves be to might also figure into the deal, too. OR are you at a pay grade where you could opt-out for a future move, and then leave when the next move is needed? In other words, will these moves be to places you might desire to stay, in the future? Or are you already there? When that final move is executed, then you can be more likely to have a place with a large enough garage to "play cars" in without negatively-impacting parking of other vehicles? OR can find a house on a lot where a detached "work shop" can happen inside of a 8' tall privacy fence! SO, this isn't just about your life in the short term, but making plans for the LONG TERM too! Plus determining when you might leave "the service" and how all of that might impact things already "in process". BUT there is ONE thing in this whole mix. This is NOT the time to be selling any sort of project car! Unless you need to in order to pay daily bills. There will be people who are also looking to "scoop up bargains", taking advantage of somebody else's poor current situation. For those people, the current economic situation is a buying opportunity that is helping them along in their ventures/activities. AND, they most probably will be having somebody else to the work on what they bought, typically. The other "hidden secret" is that the market is not going to rebound nearly as quickly as some like to believe. End result, your potential selling price might not be much more than "scrap price", unfortunately. The probability of finding another '63-'64 Buick "coupe" person can be another very "niche" sort of thing. Somebody that appreciates what you've done already and will add that into the price of an in-pieces vehicle. On the other side of things, IF and WHEN you decide to indulge in another similar Buick, what will it cost to purchase a similar car (most probably in similar condition) 10-15 years into the future? IF you took your selling price, put it into a good interest-bearing account for that same period of time, then used it to put against the price of your future Buick, how much extra might be needed then? AND (another one), if you do sell the car, when you need some stress relief from the job or life, what form might that take???? The WORST thing that could happen would be to walk into the garage, see the empty space, and wish it'd never been sold. With it still there, you can have something to tinker with, even learn how to do some of the restorarion activities on the sheet metal, for example. Something to keep your mind sane in an insane world! Still, a main thing is your career path and where it might lead you in this wonderful world. Apologies for the length. Best of luck! NTX5467
  12. Ethanol-FREE gas . . . .at most of the local WalMart/Murphy gas stations, when they rebuilt them several years ago, the added ethanol-free fuel to them. Normal "regular" grade, for about 40cents/gallon more than normal unleaded. Down the street is a QT that sells E85, for about 35cents/gallon less than E10. Most of the newer suburban QTs also sell E15, for about 7cents/gallon less than E10, with only ONE more octane point. Seems like there's a website that lists the ethanol-free stations, nationwide. Most are near marinas. Some with higher octanes, too. Not all are name brands, though. BUT, that information is available. NTX5467
  13. (Wondering if the rotor issues, sparks going everywhere but where they are supposed to, might be due to ozone formation inside the cap? As this was an issue with some of the "high power" ignition systems of the '80s, which resulted in the larger diameter caps needed to combat such cross-fire, OR drill vent holes in the cap?) How different is the buick distributor cap from that of a similar Chevy V-8? Diameter of the case and of the spark plug towers? I've seen rotor tips get corroded, even on stock points systems. Just scrape the ends with a flat-bladed screwdriver and go on. But no contact with the spark plug contacts. NTX5467
  14. The OTHER thing probably in that "mix" is the age of the tooling, which relates to the age of the design. Then-future emissions proposed regulations would require a few different approaches, most probably, so . . . if you have to replace the tooling anyway, they why not design something different and better for the same money? Plus, everybody was moving toward 4-valve/cylinder OHC designs, which have their own dynamics on the engine's emissions and power output dynamics. With an overhead valve/cam-in-block engine design, the intake ports in the head have several things to snake around. Plus the angle between the intake manifold and the intake valve head AND pushrods. An easier design if the engine is overhead camshaft design. Plus no deflection in the pushrods, which might marginally affect valve timing from what happens at the valve lifter. BUT the popular Chevy LS engine family is cam-in-block, but with VVT and some great intake and exhaust ports, in a rwd platform. The 90-degree design of the Buick engine made it wider, which was not that neat on a fwd vehicle, compared to the more narrow 60-degree designs. The Chevy 3.5L (which was the 3.9L, 3.4L, 3.1L, and 2.8L 60-degree V-6) and Buick 3.8L V-6 were replaced with the GM Powertrain 3.6 DOHC V-6, which is now on its 3rd generation. The new 3.6L was termed "High Feature", whereas the Buick and Chevy V-6s were obviously less sophisticated, less expensive to build, and lower power output. After the Buick 3.8L production ended, the Chevy 3.9L V-8 replaced the Buick 3.8L in the Lucerne models. The first year of the Chevy 3.9 had about 250 horsepower (similar to the Chrysler 3.5L V-6, but the 2nd year got VVT and lost a few horsepower. Funny thing was that in the Olds Intrigues, they initially used the Buick 3.8L V-6, but changed/upgraded to the Olds Intrigue 3.5L V-6 (which some dubbed "ShortStar" for its alleged connection to the Cadillac NorthStara V-6, and the similar 4.0L V-8 in the Olds Aurora). In order to get the Intrigue to perform as well with the 3.5L V-6, they had to lower the final drive ratio so performance would equal the prior Buick engine. Most probably on low-end torque and off-idle response. But in a few model years, the Olds V-6 would equal the Buick with the same final drive gear ratio. I have a 2005 Impala 3.4L and a 2005 Buick LeSabre 3.8L. I can tell you that the Buick just flat "runs easier" than the 3.4L Chevy does. Yet the power specs are not really that different. Both cars have the same final drive ratio, too. It might be interesting to see how the "old" Buick 3.8L would do with a modern 8-speed transaxle attached to it, compared to the base 3.6L "cammer" V-6? Especially on the highway. Just some thoughts, NTX5467
  15. I don't know if GM was "too proud of themselves", but I did observe that some of their quality decisions were lacking. Like the vinyl roofs that were showing threads on the popular Grand Prixs after a few years of the TX sun. OR the fact that almost all of those same mid-later '70s Grand Prix high-back bucket seat backs were not sewn correctly with a non-uniforn (crooked) non-horizontal upper seam. When I was in college at TX Tech ('72-'74), one of my "cheap entertainment" activities was to look at new cars on the lots. Once I noticed the crooked seat backs, I went to the local Pontiac store and looked at what they had on the lot. Only about ONE of the 30 new '74 Grand Prixs had those seats sewn correctly. Not to mention fender alignment on the GPs and similar Monte Carlos. That gen Monte Carlo was probably the first GM car where the front door sheet metal, the A-pillar, rear hood corner, and the rear of the fender all met at the same focal point, with, or course, curves involved. By '77, how all of that fit together was better than the '73 models, by observation. Which is when I read that in "a designer's policy manual" (or unwritten code) that such a coming together of all of those body lines at that place on the car was NOT to be done. I believe the EFI on the Cosworth Vega was Bosch, but the EFI on the Cadillac Eldorado was Rochester? In the middle '80s, I seem to recall that Chevrolet took proposals from Bosch and GM-Rochester on the EFI for the Chevy TPI EFI system? Of course, they took the GM-Rochester unit, but possibly with some Bosch injectors? There was also some deal with GM and Bilstein on F-body shocks, too? Several different deals, back then? Also seems like that GM copied what their competitive vendors did, a bit? But, to me, a MAIN thing GM marketing did in the '80s, in their similar vehicle comparisons was to compare numbers rather than other things like fit/finish and such. Of course, it would be "Advantage Oldsmobile" if the Olds Achieva had 2cid more engine displacement than its Honda competitor. No matter that the Honda engine was smaller, had more power/torque, and got better fuel economy. AND ran smoother. All about the numbers rather than what made those numbers, by observation. Plus, no matter how good Olds marketing made the Achieva appear to a buyer, there was always CAR AND DRIVER, back then, who obviously had "Honda-colored glasses" on, so no other car could ever come close to anything that Honda did. EXCEPT for the Chrysler Cirrus/Dodge Stratus, when the Chrysler beat the Honda in their evaluation by ONE POINT. Comparing the GM 2.5L 4-cyl to the similar Honda (or any other import brands') 4-cyl was like a "tractor engine" to a "car engine", seemingly. A god, durable engine, but not in the same league as many of the competitive-brand engines, by observation. BUT, in the long term, probably cost less to repair AND was easier to repair by the corner mechanic. Still, more refinement in almost everything GM had back then would have been welcome, but with the same semi-bulletproof durability (not needing nearly as much maintenance as any other competitive import engine, by observation). So, several different ways to look at that situation. But for the time, for GM, this was "par for the course". AS, under the later brand management organization of John Smale, market share decreased steadily. NOT to say that the GM Financial operatives were not very involved in many of these decisions, too! Being concerned with getting the car to the end of the assembly line at the least cost . . . a valid concern, which tended to cause many decisions of whether to purchase a part that would fail a projected 30% of the time or one that might fail 20% of the time. They were willing to chose the 30% failure rate to save money. And still make money after they paid the dealers to swap out that part for better one under warranty. That whole deal was explained in the Lee Iacoca book (circa 1982) where it chronicled his "life" at Ford, in the early segment of his career there. He was invited to attend a "pricing meeting" where decisions were made on shock absorbers for the '58 Fords. The choices were a $2.50 factory-cost shock, or one costing 75 cents more. The less expensive item had a projected service life a bit past the 12K mile warranty period, but the higher priced one would last longer. They opted for the less expensive one. He questioned that with his supervisor. He was told that the less expensive one would last well enough to get out of Ford's obligation during the vehicle warranty period, and give otherwise good service afterward. When the shocks did need replacement (which Monroe claimed was after 12K miles), then they'd return to the selling Ford dealer, get their Rotunda brand of aftermarket shocks (which was the +75 cents option), that would then give the customer a better product that would usually last past the 1st-owner period of ownership. Which ALSO allowed the dealer to make money, other than on the initial vehicle purchase. Which could further cement the customer/dealer relationship, to everybody's benefit. And, if all went well, keep them buying Fords. I suspect that that orientation existed well into the 1980s, when it took GM three model years to get a particular platform "perfected", whereas Ford and Chrysler seemed to do it in 1 year, by observation. The 1995 Camaro was a much better/nicer build than the initial '82-'84 models were. Panel fit, quality of materials, paint gloss, and available options. Put them all side by side and the differences were obvious. Part of that situation was possibly the result of what the DeLorean book (circa 1981), where GM would delay final approval of the cars for production until past the "last minute" to get contracts done with their suppliers. As Ford and Chrysler already had their jobs "in work", on schedule. So, this resulted in the suppliers having to put on extra shifts to do the GM "rush jobs", which tended to result in poorer quality control, which led to fir/finish/'panel gap-alignment issues. And, of course, GM had to pay more for these things, which probably meant that corners had to be compromised in other areas, to pay for it. These are my observations from the dealership-side of things, from 09/76 until the present. On the other hand, there were some things that Chevy did in their engines that seemed very "Mickey Mouse" , but after I learned how it all fit together, they worked pretty well, for less cost. But some were very dependent upon the quality of machine work in order for them to work as well as they did. "O-ring" valve stem seals, rather than "umbrella" valve stem seals, for example. As long as the valve stem/valve guide clearance is toward the bottom end of the clearance spec, things work well, but when the wear gets things enlarged, then the o-ring can work better than the more-desired umbrella seal. As long as the o-ring seal didn't split and fall off, with age. NTX5467