NTX5467

One time back in about 1983, I walked across the service drive of the local Porsche+Audi dealer to get to the parts department. I waksed past a 924 that had been hammered and it was only a few years old. I thought "Some people buy a Porsche and treat it like a Volkswagen". Similarly "Some people buy a Cadillac and treat it like a Chevy, then complain when it 'falls apart'". Some people, by observation, do not understand "the machinery" and how to make it perform its best. When they try to make it do something it was not really designed to do, it is "junk" (to them, as if THEY were the ones to bestow such a title blithely). The BEST driver/vehicle "partnerships" happen when the driver learns what the vehicle "likes" and then exploits those attributes to the mutual benefit of all, as to normal driving with some "verve" every so often. Did you hear the story about how Rolls started to use the GM THM400 automatic, then tried to improve it? PM me for details. Take care, NTX5467

For the record, I always liked that body series of Toro and Eldo much better than the similar Rivieras. The noted rpm at 70mph was typical of the time. Even the current GM cars and trucks are at the 1700rpm, usually, but with a deeper low gear, they move out quicker off-idle yet still hit that lower cruising rpm level. Knowing the heritage of the Olds V-8, getting one to 200K miles with normal maintenance should be an easy thing to do. If I can get a small block Chevy past 500K miles, an Olds should be able to do much more than that, I suspect. When I replaced the timing chain at 92K miles (for insurance purposes and to upgrade the cam a bit), I put in a Cloyes Plus Roller chain set rather than a stock replacement kit. Nice looking car! In the "traditional luxury" orientation of things. Take care, NTX5467

In many tires, for over 10+ years, they have used the 2-ply polyester cord sidewall, with 2-ply steel belts on top of that, THEN a 1-ply nylon "cap" on top of all of that. The original radials of the 1960s, their outer two steel belts were at 90 degrees to the polyester plies which went bead-to-bead. That gave them the "radial feel" on the highway, but also contributed to the more noticeable "impact" non-absorption at lower speeds. Then when the P-Metrics came around, with their 35psi inflation pressure, the outer steel belts were angled a few degrees for better impact absorption, but still have the benefits of radials. Then, in order to have better alleged high speed durability, the outer nylon cap was added to make the tread more stable, or something like that. I put some MIchelin Defenders on my 2005 LeSabre when I determined the Sears Michelin WeatherWise tires on it (when I bought it) were 10 years old. As I drive it sporadically, letting it sit for months, sometimes, on that first drive, it can take up to 50 miles for them to roll smooth again. Once smooth, no issues. Keeping them near max inflation pressure tends to help. The same brand and model of tires on my 2005 Impala do not display the "after sitting" behavior as it is the daily-use vehicle. NTX5467

On the Nissan Altimas (when they were new, about 5 yrs ago) worked just fine with their 4 cyl engine. If you just drove them normal, things worked well. I'm not sure if their EPA mileage was high enough that they didn't need the "high tech" startstop software of is they were too cost conscious to use it? In any event, a nice-driving car with good handling and power. I think they programmed things so that a small "shift" happened, which could be felt by the driver so that they knew what was going on. With the little detents in the throttle pedal going along with that deal. Make the passengers/driver feel like it's a normal automatic transmission when it isn't. NTX5467

Grade Retard was also a feature of the Chevy TurboGlide. IT was probably a Chevy version of DynaFlow as it was "on the converter" for acceleration, passing, and such. A huge amount of heat was generated as the stator in the converter uses the fluid to flow against itself for the retarding functions. IF the units were used normally, they lasted a long time. My uncle had a '61 Impala 283 that he bought new, which had a TG in it. It ran well and never "shifted". The recent Nissan Altimas I've rented had CVTs in them. They did well. The interesting thing is that there are several pre-programmed "gears" in the software. When depressing the accel pedal, there are also "detents" which signal a downshift into a lower gear position. There seems to be a max torque limit the CVT can handle. Nissans have it but Infinitis use normal geared transmissions. Hill Descent Control was introduced on BMW X5s, as I recall. At a consumer ride/drive event we went to, their method of demonstrating it was to drive up a ramp, then over the top of a secured tractor trailer trailer, then down the other side. Quite a ride!!! If the driver touches the brake pedal, it disengages. Seems like it was set for a max speed downhill of 10mph? When engines started to have more than 200 horsepower (when that much power was perceived to be the limit which a fwd vehicle could have, possibly due to the fact that all of the fwd automatic transaxles were built to that limit, a new tweak of the software to allow such higher power and deliver a smooooth shift. That software tweak was to retard the spark timing during the shifts, to decrease or eliminate "shift shock" in the transmission. This was in about 1982. As the ECM knew what the transmission was doing, the tweak to decrease the ignition advance during the split second the transmission shifted just took some extra "code" to make that happen. Still used with the modern 8+ speeds, too! On a newer Chevy pickup, on partr throttle acceleration, you can hear the exhaust get quiet a second before the shift and stay quiet for a second after the shift, as the rate of deceleration does not decrease. It can be heard best during warm-up, when accelerating from a stop, by observation. Take care, NTX5467

Might start watching the online prices at NAPA for filters several months prior to the sale. Just to make sure it is really "a sale", for general principles. Check Rock Auto for a reference, too. Enjoy! NTX5467

In the several Chargers I've rented with the ZF 8-speed, I was impressed with how smooth it operated. Just a "RCH" more accel pressure and it downshifted, rpm increase a few hundred rpm, ease past the slower vehicle, hit "Resume" on the cruise, and "done" and back to enjoying the drive. On the GM 8-speeds, after the first few shifts, nothing left to feel, as if they were invisible. I'm thinking that the main reason these newer automatics fail is their OEM programming more than anything else. Our heavy line shop foreman took a troublesome 6-speed (when they were all we had) on a test drive with the GM scan tool laptop hooked up. He noticed that going up a mild hill, the torque converter was in "50% slip" mode! That was when we were having lots of torque converter issues. AND those torque converters must weigh 60lbs or so! Instead of modifying the software, they beefed-up the torque converter. Makes one wonder who's calling the shots there? I have read many glowing reports of how great the ZF 8-speed is in performance and durability, so any USA OEM having transmission issues with that transmission raise questions to me. We saw some of the 305 cam issues, but not quite as many as some others did, apparently. We saw more '78 vintage 305s need a valve job at 30K miles from cyl head issues on their then-new "lightweight" casting cyl heads. But like other warranty issues, once the main spike in numbers went down (on the backside of the bell curve), that was it. Or the remaining vehicles had miled-out of the OEM warranty. As "bad" as the warranty issues were back then, outside of loosing customers for the carlines, those warranty repairs generated a good bit of cash flow into the dealers. But at what ultimate cost? As long as the dealers did their job of keeping the customers feeling like they were doing all they could do, the customers usually stayed around. Yet Oldsmobile customers expected better from their cars, I suspect. Chevy owners probably suspected that everybody was having issues. As Buick owners would usually trade the car at 3yrs old and get another one, by observation. Also, it seemed that GM could get away with those component failures, but if it had been Chrysler, they would have been out of business from all of the negative publicity. The "power" of General Motors back then. NTX5467

The first OEM applications for the THM200 was on A/G platforms with 4cyl or V-6 motors. In other words, it was originally designed for low-torque lighter vehicles. Which also meant "lower power consumption" (as there was not a lot of power to consume from thoer earlier "MPG" engines). When Buick put it behind their turbo motors, I knew it was an uncocked grenade, but with some beefing, it did pretty good, all things considered. Still, an area Olds dealer's parts guy said that the THM200s sometimes grenaded racking off of the transport trucks, as to their longevity and build quality. They stocked the individual clutch frictions, as their service rep would only pay for what was broken (as the transmissions were so new), whereas we stocked the GM overhaul kit as it was less expensive and had the same things in it, with ONE part number. Obviously, somebody fixed the weaknesses and increased the strength as they later held up being modified GNs with no problems. We didn't see that many warranty issues after the first year or so, but it appears that any of the performance GN people had already broken theirs' and were seeking out a non-dealership transmission shop instead. I was shocked to see that little trans behind the modified Turbo cars, BUT it obviously had lower power consumption than a stronger THM350 or otherwise. Then there was the PowerMaster brake booster that also seemed to come out of that Turbo program too. Quite ingenious, but it was problematic and nobody "in the field" understood the "empty" brake fluid reservoir. It was also used on the B-car wagons of several model years. As a result, the salvage yards were quickly depleted of vac boosters on Caprice wagons. There were some HydroBoost conversions done, too. Years later, TCI started selling some beefier internals such that a 454 Chevy street rod could use them successfully, on the OD models. THEN . . . GM changed the order codes for "3 Speed Automatic" from M38 (THM350) to MX0 for "3-speed automatic" so we didn't know which transmission would be installed in a '78 Caprice 305 4bbl. Which generated some customer concerns due to a loss of shift smoothness, by comparison. A minor concern as our customers loved those Caprice 305 4bbls. As good as the THM Division's reputation might have been, their products made us a lot of warranty money. In later years, the Service Replacement Transmission Assembly (SRTA) GM crate reman transmissions made us lots of money, not related to the gear ratio spread between 1-2, but from things like "lack of lube to the rear tailshaft area when running in "D" rather than "OD" at lower speeds. You had to know the Julian date of when the trans was built to know what parts would be needed! At one time, our transmission guy had 3 lifts and 4 stalls as we had that much volume in doing SRTA THM700s. 3-4 a day! And now, decades later, there are more warranty transmission issues than we could have foreseen back then! But like back then, it was not just GM having issues that way. Most of the recent issues seem, from what I could tell, are in the programming of the transmission. Apparently there are some aftermarket programs which let the transmission work "more normally" than GM desired, with the end result that after the vehicle gets out of warranty, some customers get the aftermarket programs installed and we never see them again, as they have not more transmission-related performance issues any more! In driving them, it's as if they have major inputs buffered far too much (obviously to protect the transmission from itself??), which causes other issues that we see and are addressed with TSB re-programs that don't really work. The issue with THAT is that they probably can't change the program too much, which can be related to EPA emissions and MPG certifications, without re-certifying the vehicles. But as long as GM pays the bills, we had to do what they said to do, as the customers saw little change and still were not pleased. From what I could see, they are scabbing trying to meet EPA regulations via how the transmission does its work. The original Dex VI fluid for the 6-speeds was originally semi-syn, but became full-syn later on due to apparent heat issues from torque converter modulation of the lock-up clutch. Then came the 8+ speeds and TWO other new ATFs, one with Mobil's name on it. "LV" for "low viscosity"? When ATF in general is close to 10W viscosity? Must be some trick friction modifiers in that fluid, too! When we got the 8-spee automatics, I always suspected it was a ZF-licensed product, but in more recent times, I realized it is not. Although the Chrysler ZF transmission have some similar service issues, it seems. The difference in the GM 8-speeds is that some of the valve body functions are BEFORE the gearset? Reason is that their design can result in quicker shift executions, which CAN affect cars operating under race conditions on that German race track everybody always talks about. Where a nanosecond longer shift time might mean the difference in having the crown that year or not. Quicker shifts due to shorter tubes/fluid circuits, it appears. AND . . . those 6+ speed automatics weigh past 200lbs! Lots of rotating mass in there! Sorry for the length . . . NTX5467

Definitely had to find some positives in order to sell an Olds 307 back then. I suspect it had "more cam" and "more cfm in the carb" than the earlier 303 did, but that 303 was also pulling a deep low gear HydraMatic that got it out of the hole much quicker so the lack of low rpm torque was not really noticed. We sold massive amounts of Caprice 305 4bbl cars, starting in 1977 model year. They all ran well and were very good road cars in TX. But going up Ranger Hill on I-20 headed toward Abilene, they were no match for a 400cid Pontiac 2bbl with highway gears. As to pickup trucks, our guys were good about putting the rear axle ratio in perspective to the use of the pickup truck. Few other dealers did that, by observation, especially after fuel economy became more of an issue. I once saw a '72 Dodge D-100 that a plumber brought in for an oil change. He complained about it having no power. The bed was full of misc. items. It was a 400 2bbl with a 2.76 rear axle. Needed a 3.21 to do things better. Many times, the deeper gears would improve fuel economy on pickups that "worked". I was always amazed at the mass of vac hoses on the Olds 307s. A major undertaking to change valve cover gaskets, unless you could loosen the "harness" enough to snake them out from under it. ALL emission control hoses, usually. By comparison, the earlier 1972 Cutlass 350s, when "de-smogged" (as was propular back then) would usually do 20mpg on the highway after such things. A big improvement from OEM specs. Just made those '72 vintage Cutlasses more or a sweeter car. Back to the Olds 307 in a mid-'80s Buick Estate Wagon . . . a customer had one sent to us to see if it was running as it should. I took it on a test drive on the highway. Going up a slight grade at 60mph, I suddenly went to WOT. Transmission downshifted, carb opened up (heard by the secondaries' "roar"), but mph did not increase one bit. I thought . . . this car, with 5 people, and towing a boat in Colorado would be a disaster . . . but that's what Buick built. Yikes! It WAS a very luxurious car, just needed "more engine".

I totally concur on the Olds 307 being one of the least powerful 165 horsepower motors GM built back then. Especially in a B-body station wagon (EMPTY!). Not sure how the Cutlass (with the "garbage truck" shifter in the console) did. BTAIM The '79 Toronado Trofeos were great looking cars, to me. Add the 403 and they would be much better. At the time, their multi-color instrument cluster was industry-leading. When combined with the factory cell phone option, it could call the police to report itself stolen, from what the presenters said at the Dallas New Car Show that year. The similar Eldo was a great looking car, too. The "soft" Rivieras just did not trip my trigger. NO problem with the powertrain's integrity and longevity, or the interior comfort, but that exterior styling could have been a bit better, to me. But then I never was in their desired customer demographic then or now. I'm waiting for the 1980s Riviera (converted) convertibles to fly upward from their $12K plateau. I might not live that long. Have fun! NTX5467

I used the gauges in my earlier years to ensure things were "just right" on the float level. Usually, NO adjustment was needed or they were usually very close, so only a mild tweak was needed, if any. In my more recent times, there is usually a witness line on the float from it being in gas (at the correct level). This line parallels the flat part of the air horn housing very accurately. If it's close, I just run with it. So far, no issues. Just my experiences, NTX5467

How long has this been going on? Did it start suddenly or has it been building to this point? Just curious, NTX5467

I suspect that finding that glass might be like hen's teeth, already built and such. Yet I suspect that any residential glass company might cut one for you, then you adhesive it in. GM never sold mirror glasses as a separate item from the mirrors. Except for the stick-on convex rh mirror accessory items, which were installed over the existing mirror, for specific types of mirrors. As minor as they might seem, they worked well as long as you learned how to use them. I put one on my then-new '77 Camaro back then and it's still in place. It is thicker in the middle than on the edges, "convex" built to adhere to a flat surface. Later versions were not that way. Might the "distortion" you are seeing actually be a bit of convex shape of the glass? Also interesting that looking at the OEM mirror with the window rolled up, the window glass is causing the mirror to appear to supply a distorted vision? Just some thoughts and observations, NTX5467

Is the OP desiring to replace "sagged" springs or raise the rear end above factory wide height . . . where the rear of the rocker panel will be higher than the front, rather than even with it? Only issue with doing just the rear springs to regain the factory ride height, the front springs probably are sagged too, so they will be needed also, to get the rocker panel parallel to the road surface again. The issue of aged body mounts is a good suggestion. Seems like the Eaton Detroit Spring website has options for higher than stock ride height coil springs? Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Don't the self-service car washes up there have "whitewall cleaner" in their selections? But NOW that you have that extra chrome, dirty tires can detract from them more than hub caps. I'm waiting for concours-level self-cleaning paint! NTX5467

My point is that trying to gauge engine rpm by how it sounds can lead to inaccuracies. What was once considered "normal" can lead to "over-revved" sounds now? As to weatherstrip issues, have you tried closing the side air vents, so the cabin is not pressurized at highway speeds? Using "Recirculate"/inside air on the a/c (if equipped)? It seems that every car, back then, had some level of "wind noise", just a matter of degree. Enjoy! NTX5467

Now . . . when are the 14" whitewall tires going to arrive to complete the OEM look? Just a thought, NTX5467

Looks like it was a great show, Roberta. A good number of awards for Buicks owned by "BCA Royalty", too! Congrats, NTX5467

Much of what might be deemed "revving too high" can be related to the sound of things, not just what we might perceive as "rpm". Exhaust sounds and related resonances can be a part of this, as can induction system sounds. One engine might be quieter at 3000rpm than another, for example. A 3.42 with modern tires is not too far off from a '55 Century (with tires from back then) with its stock 3.6 (or so) stock rear axle, as to mph/1000rpm. If a 3.07 ratio is "normal", with lower numbers being "highway/downhill gears" and higher numbers being "performance gears", so be it. End result is that the engines could spend hours at about 3000=3500rpm with no problems (other than an emptying gas tank), back then. The other side of the deal is that with a quieter exhaust system, if the engine sounds happy and little throttle input is needed on the highway, don't worry about it. Just enjoy! Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Sounds like a great event to go to! A good reason to drive the Buick and get out of the house! YouTube video coverage? Buick Gardens looks even more fabulous that I ever suspected, from the pictures above. Didn't realize you were so close to the Savoie! A great museum, from the pictures I've seen. It houses a '29 Buick which used to belong to one of our chapter members, Chuck and Diane Nixon. Y'all enjoy! NTX5467

Unfortunately, each of the GM carlines did their own things as to how they engineered the cars, even for parts like steering components. Which means high prices for NOS items or to get the part rebuilt by a good company. IF you might find a salvage yard which still has an old Hollander Interchange Manual, which goes back that far, it would list the other vehicles for which steering parts on your car might interchange with and what it might take to get some others to work on your car. This might be a terrible "long shot", though. Even though, the parts for those interchanges might be unobtainium, too. When you do get the replacement items, seek out some Valvoline synthetic chassis lube with Moly in it, to meet the Ford spec for such. The synthetic grease lasts longer and the moly makes for a better frictional decrease, too. A win-win situation, to me. Available in grease gun tubes, too. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

On ANY carrier bearing, make sure the water shields are on both sides of the bearing itself! On our '69 Chevy pickup (which has a 2-piece driveshaft, every so often the bearing would get noisy, so we'd take it to the dealer to get it replaced. One time, the prior replacement ended up with a bent shield, so it wore through the rubber surrounding the bearing in the housing. Squeaked until it finally wore though the rubber it was touching. On the bearing replacement after that, the tech threw away the shields as "They aren't needed. It's a sealed bearing", which made sense. Yet within two years (about 30K miles), the bearing was noisy again. Taking it apart, getting the plastic protectors out of the way, the bearing was full of sand. So much for the "sealed bearing" idea! So we ordered some new water shields and made sure nothing touched. That was the last carrier bearing we needed to put in it. NTX5467

Yep, looks like you need a new one. Finding one might be a trick. I suspect they are still out there, just need to find the right place. Possibly an old driveshaft shop that has been around "since the cars were newer". The bad thing, even if you might find an NOS one, that the rubber in it will be old to start with, which can mean "old and dried-out" a bit, so it might bre a bit fragile to start with. For the best longevity, you'll also need to address where that oil/sand accumulation came from and fix that FIRST, while the shaft is out of the car. Were there any shims between the mounting point and the rubber? Just some thoughts, NTX5467

A "real Buick owner" could have already have had a Cadillac, IF they wanted one. Instead, they chose the Buick they liked and were used to, regardless of the price. Not to mention the "little things" (as in the less expensive oil change) in the bargain. This is what GM discovered when they deleted Oldsmobile, many Olds customers did not bite for the discount voucher for a new Cadillac, preferring to stay with their existing former Olds dealer and buy what he sold. As for the young couple, by the time they can buy that Buick, they will be about the 4th owner of that car. Which means about 20-somethnings who are still active before the kids come or they are in college. I remember seeing a ;85 LeSabre with three couples in it of such people, on a weekend night, out for clean fun. Why should they buy an inexpensive Ford compact when they bought a nicer Buick for the same money, which is easier to fix, and costs less to maintain? On the other hand, a long-time Buick owner selling their car (when needed) in later life, at a very discounted price, can be a godsend for a younger buyer. A very nice, nicely cared for car, for under $3000.00. A similar Cadillac can have many more issues with its options, by comparison. Not to forget the long-term issues which can happen with the Northstar V-8 . . . like when the cyl heads have to come of at 150K miles, having to have all of the cyl head bolt holes "Timezerted", etc. As the typical Buick 3800 just keeps purring right along. Nor the similar DeVille's $300.00+labor blower motor, or Northstar oil leaks. As getting the oil changed at a local Valvoline oil change place now surpasses $75.00 for their syn-blend oil, knowing well that a gallon of the same oil at WalMart is only about $26.00+tax, I can use their coupon to buy it down to $55.00 incl tax. You don't like "coupon clippers" either? Buick was the low-cost maintenance leader over Cadillac. Want to consider EPA fuel economy ratings between those two engines too? Advantage Buick. Regards, NTX5467

That Ed Roth creation was probably done in the earlier 1960s, when "Space Race" vehicles were in vogue. Made great displays at the bigger indoor car shows back then. Their "oddity" was their main attribute. NTX5467