NTX5467

One problem with adding additives after blending, by consumers, is the old "If some is good, more will be better" orientation. Everybody is of the orientation that all older oils had plenty of zddp in them for flat tappets, but some of the oil analysis reports I've found online to not support that claim. Some brands had less zddp in them that some of the modern oils which are supposed to be stayed away from. As other brands had more, but nothing like the 1400ppm of zddp many feel is needed. In researching the zddp issue when it first seemed to start, most of the USA failures were in "racing" and "high performance" engines with higher valve lifts (over .475" or so) or rebuilt engines (which used an aftermarket camshaft). THEN the issue appeared in some VW engines (which used a cam lobe to run their high-pressure injection pump). For the VW application, I looked at the oil recommended for those engines, which was an "SL" rated oil, which is capped at 1000ppm zddp and usually synthetic. Castrol sells a "black bottle" oil in "SL", 5W30, and (of course for them) full-synthetic. When I sold the last new Chevy ZZ430 crate motor, I carefully removed the Installation Instruction pamphlet, looking for engine oil specs for that motor . . . which had been "fire tested" at the engine plant that built it. It plainly said "SM" 10W-30 motor oil (which was the GM OEM spec at the time), with no mention of synthetic motor oil specifically. This motor had a high-lift cam and stiffer balve springs, yet it would "live" on oil with 800ppm zddp? BUT with a Parkerizing process on the cam to OEM specs. Which led me to suspect that the failed aftermarket cams had lesser coatings which worked fine with the "SL" oils but not the later ones. Then, CompCams later offered the "additional Parkerizing" as an option. Suspicion confirmed? Plus, as suspected, every cam manufacturer eventually had their own-brand of zddp additives for "break-in" or normal running. Of course, upgrading to roller valve lifters is an expensive proposition. Only problem is that roller-lifter cams were usually for ultra-performance race motors with higher lifts and lift rates which any kind of flat tappet could not tolerate. The OEM orientation is using them to "get friction out of the motor", plus a better lift curve for the valves. Ford's "answer" was mushroom-bottom lifters in their Y-block V-8s. There's a lot more to this deal than many might suspect, from my observations. Decades later, the primary oil additive keyed-on is zddp. THEN in an apparent effort to sell more of THEIR brand of motor oil, their "oil guy" states that using diesel-rated oil in a gasoline-fired engine is not good, due to "a different type of zddp in diesel oil that (apparently) does not work as well in a gasoline motor". Of course, a diesel motor oil has to deal with a bunch of things a gasoline motor oil does not (like keeping soot in suspension) for very long oil change intervals. But the friction/wear issues would be the same, I suspect. Years ago, when a brand spokesperson claimed "Use our product as it is better", I started to look for hidden agendas, which can mean "follow the money". Why would that spokesperson claim their oil is better (in a technical orientation) than another brand, if it might be that they desired to sell more of their-brand oil as a result? Considering that brand also has oil with massive amounts of zddp in it for specific race or "engine building" uses. I'm not disputing their statements, just a bit skeptical until I personally discover otherwise, related to the types of zddp, (which I don't doubt, but nobody had mentioned them before). But, as I've mentioned before, zddp is not the ONLY part of a high-pressure, friction-lowering motor oil additive package for a daily-use motor oil with great detergency qualities. My personal research is ongoing . . . Sorry for the length, NTX5467

For some reason, GM seemed to be on "a kick" to use two-piece driveshafts on everything they built in the 1960s. From pickup trucks to all of their larger passenger vehicles. While Ford and Chrysler did otherwise. In one respect, there had to have been some cost savings OR a valid engineering reason to justify the additional costs (in production and in later lives of the vehicles). Or might it have been related to the use of X-frames? Yet no X-frames on their light-duty truck platform. The center "double joints" were supposed to be about smoothness, as I recall, but in an otherwise smoooth body-on-frame vehicle which was already smoooooth by design? Which gets back to "Must have been chasing some harmonics . . ." situation. Seems like the new-for-1973 pickup trucks originally had two-piece shafts in them, which were later changed to single-piece shafts under warranty? Some of the 1990s Camaro V-6s used a two-piece driveshaft, but the center joint was similar to the outer bearing on a fwd driveshaft, as I recall. Must have been chasing some harmonic which was not there on the V-8 cars? Enjoy! NTX5467

But all it usually took to fix a flickering "GEN" light was a screwdriver or some wrenches, just depending on the severity of the issue. Maybe even a wire brush for the battery connections? Enjoy! NTX5467

Thanks for that information. In my dealings with keys at the dealership, we bought GM keys and sold them under GM part numbers. When I came online ln late 1976, we were fully into the rectangular head keys at that time. We still had some residual B&S keys, though, plus the older hand cutters and code books. I did not get involved with keys until I went to the front counter in about 1990s, yet having been around older vehicles, I knew of the B&S keys (which always seemed a bit strange compared to B&S lawn equipment). I later discovered the same blank code on the earlier B&S keys as the later keys. in comparing them, that is when I noticed the B&S keys were thicker, but had the same grooves in them as the later keys. Then, when we ran out of the desired B&S keys, I'd substitute the later square head keys for them, with the suggestion to file off the corners where they might hit the bezel around the ign cyl. Everybody was happy to get a new key in the correct code, even if they might need to modify the head a bit to work in the ign cyl. Then, should they encounter one of the vintage key vendors, they had a good pattern to deal with. At some time in the 1990s or so, GM started to advertise that some cars could have "Valet keys" for certain cars. The valet keys had a different large head and were thicker so they would only go into a cyl with a larger opening to accept them. The same thickness as the old B&S keys, I noticed. This was a marketing tool more than anything else as the valet key would only fit the ignition cyl. Somewhere along the line, they were quietly discontinued and then the plastic "emergency use" keys were "the next big thing", for the next few years . . . until people generally got affluent enough to call a locksmith or tow truck driver, when the keys broke off in a door lock cyl needing to be lubricated. In dealing with keys, we always bought GM keys from GM parts. That way, when a customer came in for a new key, they got a key exactly like the one they had lost/misplaced, rather than giving them something like they could get at Home Depot or similar. To me, that made for a better experience. I used the GM parts book to determine what was what, although we also had the other application book (with the "B" numbers in it. I would look at as a shortcut or quick-reference guide for the keys we bought which didn't come from GM. Many dealers bought from Curtis back then, who also supplied GM (and other brands) keys. For a long time, after GM went to the "plastic head" keys, the Curtis/Stratec keys always looked like they were "over-cooked" in the molds when compared to the GM-sourced keys. As a result, I bought the GM keys from GM as the GM-supplied keys looked like OEM rather than not. As things progressed, my associates did not understand my OEM orientation, so the over-cooked-looking Stratecs came to be what we stocked. BTAIM It was the key guide which brought me to notice the "Buick H" door blank compared to the normal "Square H" blank used on non-Buicks. Then the use of the carline logo on the blank heads, which increased the number of blanks massively, as to the heads and not the groove codes. I had never put together then ears on the steering column lock cylinders and the square head keys. I just went by what the parts book indicated and went from there. Then noticing the same groove codes on the B&S and square head keys, plus the thicker B&S keys with the same groove codes. The later, thinner square head keys could be used in the older, wider B&S cylinders, but not vice versa. MIght have to file off the inner corners of the square head keys to use in the earlier cars, though. Enjoy! NTX5467

Thanks for mentioning the anti-wear additives in that earlier unleaded gasoline. I knew there had to be "something" in them! Just as there are other things to minimize flat tappet/cam lobe wear other than zddp (which is the least expensive alternative). But zddp and TEL are what everybody keys upon. Thanks, NTX5467

I thought I had heard you mention that years ago. Just wanted to verify. Thanks, NTX5467

Just for the record, what oil and viscosity? NTX5467

Valve adjustments being used to gauge valve seat recession is one way to do it, BUT also remember that any mechanical lifter flat tappet engine, in the era when leaded gasoline was everywhere, was common. The issue was more related to valve lifter contact surface wear than valve seat recession. Some engines, as the VW Beatle 4cyl would actually tighten the valve adjustment with time, so whenever you heard one of them with a higher-pitched "wheeeze", that was why. Adjusting the valve lash eliminated that noise. Take care, NTX5467

If your pockets are a bit deep, you can still buy leaded racing fuel, of about 114 Research Octane in drums from several sources. Not financially-sustainable (even if mixed), though. You might also need a Fire Marshal's approval (and inspections) of the storage facility, too. Best to use the least expensive method and buy fuel from a higher-volume location. This morning, the Murphy USA station (in front of a WalMart) was selling 87 Pump Octane unleaded for $3.19 USD gallon. A QT station on the Interstate was selling Tier One 87 Pump Octane unleaded for the same price. FWIW Enjoy! NTX5467

In one respect, as long as the lifters are quiet and no other not-desired sounds occur at any time, no real concerns (as if the watning lights were always unilluminated after starting, going out quickly). On the other hand, knowing what the pressure is on the gauge can be good too. You can always hold the gauge "accountable" that as long as the pressure is in the "Normal" range, it is fine. Just watch it to see how it acts, like if it takes longer to rise upon first start or heads more toward "0" at idle. In an old 1950 Plymouth service manual, on the issue of oil pressure, it stated that ANY oil pressure at idle is good, as long as it then increases with engine speed. How long has the pressure been lower than it used to be? Might it be time to install a quality electric gauge for verification? Would be interesting to see how much wear is on the main and rod bearings, via Plastigage. Please keep us posted on what you find. Now that it's being in the lower 70s in the mornings, makes me feel like I need to grab a coat. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

When I was researching fuel stabilizers and such, I ran across the Bell Perf website and signed up for their newsletter. They run sales every so often in case lots. Glad to hear a good recommendation on their products. Since the "age of EFI", fuel quality seems to be much more standardized then it used to be. Anybody's fuel works well, it seems, no matter the brand. Direct Injection can throw in a few extra kinks, though. Personally, I estimate current gas prices are about $1.00-$1.25 too high. Plus, in the DFW area, when prices get down into the $3-teens for a few days, just when you were glad prices were coming down and stabilizing there, the next morning (or afternoon), the price suddenly goes up about 22 cents/gallon. After it stays there a day or so, then the price will ease back down by 1-3 cents/gallon per day until it gets close to the original price. And it's been doing that for over a year! And during the extended 100+ degree weather we had for the past few months, it was said that many of the Gulf Coast refineries were not configured to operate in that much heat, liking 95 degrees F much better. So less supply with increased demand. A "game" which seems to be fueling the EV sales in the process. It might have a 20 year pay-out, but with enough rooftop solar and such, get enough capacity to charge your EV without powering the house, yet. Waiting for improved solid-state batteries and such! Enjoy! NTX5467

Yes, "Top Tier" fuels are also OEM-recommended, but are usually the same price as the "discount outlet" fuels which are not "Top Tier". One major grocery chain's gasoline lacks the Top Tier labels, BUT also sells additives at the pump, which to me might be a bit sketchy as to if they are really added or not. The addition of those additives elevates that discount price above any of the other Top Tier fuels in the area, by observation. www.gasbuddy.com has mostly-current "10 lowest fuel prices" in a selected area, so you can check prices for Top Tier fuels by state, county, or city. I always got a chuckle when I saw "Guaranteed Gasoline" on the wall at RaceTrac. "Guaranteed to be gasoline?", I thought. Take care, NTX5467

I agree, a frame lift would be much better. Perhaps a page of the service manual indicating "lift points" could be copied and laminated to remain in the vehicle? Might even sell them? NTX5467

In reality, to me, this was probably the best thing to do. Especially if you need to go back there again for something. Next time, suggest they use the center of the rear axle housing to get both rear wheels off the ground. Perhaps some of the lifting blocks, as mentioned, can be stowed in the trunk, getting them out when needed. This might well not be the last time for needing them, I suspect. In the special tools we got with our Jeep-Renault Special Tools were some wooden lifting blocks to use on the rocker panel pinch welds, back in 1982 when we were a Jeep-Renault dealer for about 6 months. Perhaps you could do a short write-up for the "Riview"? One of the "things" about driving an older car, plus getting it serviced, is that most of the people who might be working on it have never seen anything like it before and treat it "as a modern car" they are used to dealing with. Of course, due to their age, they have no idea of how different they might be OR that the vehicle might be damaged by "modern techniques". SO, you have to choose the shops wisely. If you'd had the lifting blocks prior to this, you could have laid them out and kindly instructed the service people of how to use them? We might not think about these things and certainly the younger people doing the work have not been instructed to think about them either. OR to ask for special instructions. The common chassis lift points of the center of the front crossmember and the center of the rear axle housing do not exist on modern fwd cars as they did on the older (or newer) rear wheel drive cars. Many newer lifts lift on the rocker panels themselves, which would make the lifting blocks mandatory in this case. Most of the lifting blocks I've seen of late are round pucks with a slot cut across them for the pinchweld to fit into. Perhaps a piece of 4x4 fence wood might be also used, for a longer contact point on the rocker panel? To spread out the lifting force? Cutting them into 12"-18" lengths? Just some thoughts, NTX5467

For the sway bar link bushings, go polyurethane for those. It will make the bar act like it's about 20% bigger. Many sources, many in colors. NTX5467

Typically, the only time the "rated" compression ratio comes into play is for an engine blueprinted to factory specifications. Or a rebuilt engine where it is align-honed, deck surfaced, and cyl head combustion chambers are checked/adjusted for minimum cc volume. IF the engine has been rebuilt, many piston manufacturers (quietly) "de-stroked" their replacement pistons by .020" in the earlier 1990s, to help the engines better tolerate the lower octane fuels we had then. Then add the .040" thickness composite head gaskets, replacing the original .018" steel shim head gaskets which were OEM, and more effective compression ratio decreases. As a point of reference, any of the earlier engines with a 9.0CR, were supposed to use "Regular" gasoline, which was in the 93-95 Research octane range. With 10.0CR motors needing "Premium" or "Ethyl" gasoline, which usually was from 97-100 Research octane range. The later low-lead gasolines were typically 91 research octane, due to the decrease in lead content. This was back when each of the main gasoline brands had their own distribution trucks and regional tank farms. If you bought their gas, you knew it was refined to be theirs. Rather than a generic brand where the additives were added to the tank and blended on the way to the gas station. Some factory engines liked certain brands of fuel better than others, by observation, back then. Enjoy! NTX5467

NO, that formula did not exist prior to about 1972. ALL octanes quoted prior to about 1972 were for "Research Octane", the "R" in the formula. It was the easiest octane rating to make, as I understand it, as the Motor (the "M" in the formula) was the most difficult octane rating to make. In about 1957, the top "Ethyl" octane was 97 Research Octane, reaching 101 Research Octane, but mostly being 98-100 in the glory days of high compression engines in the earlier 1960s. In 1973-74, I could buy Phillips 66 FliteFuel (premium) gas in Lubbock, TX with a posted pump octane of 95.5. The highest pump octane I'd ever seen. Not sure what the Motor octane was, but apparently is was pretty good as the car I was driving (with a rated 9.2CR) was more responsive on it, plus we were closer to their Phillips, TX refinery, possibly? Posted octane (by the above formula) will decrease with altitude, typically. One other consideration is that the Nailhead Buicks, with their better mix of cast iron than other GM divisions, needed the "hardened seats" less, as a result. To the point that when the GM edict that from April 15, 1971, all GM engines would have to have hardened seats and tolerate the new low-lead fuels which were introduced back then. Buick resisted as their cyl heads had better metal, but the GM edict stayed and Buick had to comply. So their cast iron mix was "dumbed-down" to comply as a result. One issue with adding hard seats to Buick Nailhead cyl heads is the closeness of the water jacket to the exhaust valve seats. Such that "hitting water" is very possible when cutting the heads for the hard seat inserts. Back in the earlier 1960s, Flying A gasolines and exclusively "no-lead" gasolines. It was basically an east cost brand, as I recall. I do not recall hearing of and cyl head problems from using that fuel. Additionally, "white gas" (i.e., no-lead) was available at higher altitudes as that's all the octane needed "up there" for many motors. At lower altitudes, some gas stations had it available from a tank, for outboard boat motors and such. Along about 1974, I found a copy of a Chilton magazine in the college library. In one issue, they had an engineering study which Chrysler had done on a '73 Town & Country station wagon with their heaviest trailer towing package. They hooked the car to a big trailer (max recommended weight) and ran it around the test track until it would not go any more. High load, high throttle. After 12K miles of such high-load, high-speed action, the cyl heads were junk from valve seat recession and "wear". This was on cyl heads with normal valve seats, non-induction hardened. For a normal-use car which very, very seldom sees WOT minimally, you can easily project those mileages upward a good bit. Then add in more mileage for the better cast iron mix that Buick used back then. Later, in a major RV magazine, the issue of "lead replacement additives" was discussed in an article. Seems there are two major types of lead replacement additives. One based on "an oil" and the other based "on sodium". A key thing in the article was the issue of engine loading (which a large motorhome would see, consistently). After all of their discussion of how each type of additive might work, I don't recall an "silver bullet" being mentioned. One of the major octane booster brands also came out with a fuel additive termed "Real Lead". In order to put a tank of unleaded gas up to even the low-lead specs, it would take a whole quart to do so. At about $7.95 a quart. Seems the feds regulate how much lead is in those lead additives, which might have resulted in some additive makers opting to not use real TEL in their products. As to upper engine lubrication, there have always been "top oil" additives for gasoline, at least over the past 70 years. Used to be sold as such by some oil companies at their gas stations. In more modern times, things like Marvel Mystery Oil, at recommended concentrations, can do the same thing. Just as adding "two-stroke motor oil" to the gas (1 ounce per 5 gallons) has been lauded in other forums I'm in. As such "motor oil" is meant to go in gasoline anyway. In the synthetic variations, this might be a better and more available option? It and MMO might help protect fuel system parts from ethanol-related problems, possibly? Whatever works for y'all! NTX5467

Yes, no doubt the tires starting at 24psi would build up several pound after running a while. But with the decreased flex of 30psi (cold) to start with, they built up less as they were flexing less at these times. Whatever works, NTX54657

Some modern radials have pressure ratings up to 45psi stamped in the sidewall as "MAX PRES", but using the older-style 30psi (cold) should work well, with respect to ride, handling, and longevity. Might even lower the rears down to 28psi, but not the fronts, or add 2psi for 32 psi front and 30psi rear. Try and see what you like best. In later owners manuals, the 24psi recommendation is for a soft ride and decent handling. If speeds above 70mph were to be driven, then the base recommendation was increased to 28psi. With any significant load in the trunk, with more passengers, up to 32psi (which was the old bias-ply "max load recommendation" for the vehicle). With the old bias-ply tires, the more air pressure the more firm the tire became. Less flexing over bumps and in turns, or under hard braking. Less flex also meant longer tread wear and slightly better fuel economy, too. Regards, NTX5467

On those cars, "navigation" had a module that ran it, plus a different antenna to receive signals as to your position. Not just a "bolt-in" situation unless you get EVERYTHING off of the donor car. A GM dealership parts department might have an illustration of the navigation system hardware in the parts database. Even IF all of the items were still available new or from a salvage yard, it would NOT be an inexpensive situation, plus having to "tear the car apart" to put it all in. This is not a recommended upgrade due to the complexity of the system.! If the car has the updated OnSTAR system (updated to use current cell phone signals), you can subscribe to "Turn by Turn" navigation as an option. Completely auditory with no screen, as the original OnSTAR was before screens became popular with other brands. Not to forget that many cell phone brands and providers now have "driving instructions" and maps available on them, too. PLUS Google Maps has "Point A to Point B" routings available, with details of distances and which way to turn, when. This can be done before driving. Take care, NTX5467

Adding gas due to a leak or component replacement? This is not usually something which fails on those cars or other similar systems. Still curious, NTX5467

What issue are you seeking to fix? How did you determine the expansion valve needed to be changed? Just curious, NTX5467

1967 was the first year of the "GM Mark of Excellence" logo. The logo which was on the ignition key square head and ususally a decal on the driver's door shell, near the lock mechanism in plain sight. The B&S keys had a thicker cross-section than the later, thinner "GM" keys. BUT they still used the same letter blank designations. So no problem to cut a later key for use in a B&S era lock cylinder. In the later "H" blanks for door keys, Buick had one which was not square, but had an additional wide end on it. In the parts book, specific to 1990s Buick models only. Obviously, it was easier to hold and turn for "older hands"? But the KEY thing is that the correct blank code is used, no matter the year of the vehicle. I always let other work associates cut keys. One guy was very meticulous about how he rebuilt lock cylinders and such. I wanted no part of that! UNTIL . . . I bought a 1968 Buick service manual and read the section of how to read the cut depths on the keys, to duplicate them. THEN . . . it all made sense. I soon learned to cut keys accurately. We still had some of the old B&S blanks in various designations, so when it was for an older car, I used them, which made the customers happy. Otherwise, I used the square blanks which they could copy onto an earlier blank if desired. I lived though the transition (with the existing grinder/duplicator) to the modern 10-cut keys. When the side-cut keys happened, we bought them pre-cut from GM. Later, we got a NC cutter for them. Even with them, there are 5 "cut depths". Enjoy! NTX5467

As stated, don't depart just because you sold your Riviera. Think of the ROA and this forum as more of "an enthusiast organization" rather than "an owner's club". An enthusiast organization where vehicle ownership is not required, just an enthusiasm for the vehicles is all that's needed. The key thing in these forums is sharing "collective" knowledge and insights. For the betterment of all. Take care, enjoy life, and do things which make you smile. NTX5467

Another source for a "black battery" is Interstate. They are in their catalog AND they supply them to several import brand dealerships as OEM batteries. Toyota, Lexus, and Hyundai (for sure), plus some others I suspect. Same batteries, just the labels are different for OEM warranty replacement issues. Enjoy! NTX5467