NTX5467

Considering how Ford did some things back then, they might have had a vac actuator under the dash that would move the brake pedal just enough to turn the cruise "off", as if the driver had tapped the brake themself, but used their finger rather than their foot. I remember them using a "chain" to run from the throttle's vac actuator under the hood to the carb linkage. In the earlier ones, it was "open" and could catch on some of the nearby engine parts and "hang" and "not release" when the unit was deactivated. The factory fix was a shield under the chain. I guess that if the cruise was set, the driver floored the throttle to pass, then backed off to resume normal cruising, the limp chain would catch on something on the intake manifold and act as if the cruise was set for a higher speed, but in reality, the vac actuator has extended to the non-working or "coast" dimension, further complicating the limp chain issue. Chrysler had an integrated underhood unit on the '68 and up models, which used a cable with a "lost motion link" on the carb to allow the cruise to be set and the driver to override it without causing any linkage issues. I'm sure they had a spring-loaded actuator on the earlier units which used a solid linkage to accomplish the same thing. Ford's "better idea" back then -- that little chain that could snag on an engine part. Happy New Year, Y'all! NTX5467

In Chevrolet applications for the THM400 automatic trans, it used an electric kickdown switch. On our '69 Chevy pickup, it was a plunger mechanism that mounted to the rear of the carb and had an appropriate "paddle" attached to the throttle bracket to activate it at WOT. Later vintage vehicles used one that was a slide switch and activated by part of the suspended-pedal throttle pedal under the dash. The switch snapped into a bracket that was part of the mounting bracket for the throttle pedal itself. I'm not sure where the "contact" might be in the travel of that slide switch, but it might be possible to adapt something of that nature, together, to get the idle and WOT functions operating as designed, but with different switches and switch locations. In the electric headlight system on the '67 Camaro RS, there are "limit switches" that make things stop when desired. Seems like they were made by "Littlefuse" and had their own "paddles" that were contacted by the headlight bellcranks and such. They are small and narrow, so it would not necessarily take a major bracket to mount them. I don't recall the particular part numbers, but you would need to determine the voltage and amps of the circuit to get the correct ones. I'm sure there is a website for that manufacturer, somewhere, that has the "buyer's guide" illustrations and specs. Maintaining some sort of OEM-spec parts would be good, but sometimes that's not possible. I suspect you've tried the aftermarket suppliers too? Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Somewhere, in the archives of the SAE, there should be a list of engine specs (other than just horsepower, torque, and taxable horsepower) for the engines in question. SOME of these things might even be in a Buick Chassis Service Manual, especially the cam specs and similar. There could also be an "SAE Transaction" (i.e., tech paper presented by Buick operatives), but I don't recall seeing one back in the 1970s when I found them hidden away on an upper floor of the Texas Tech Univ. library. To get a better idea of what "works" and "interchanges", rather than go by GM part numbers, it might be better to use a highly vintage Perfect Circle or TRW Engine Parts catalog. This might make more sense AND it might also reveal the rocker arm ratios for the various rocker arms AND possible identifying casting numbers or date codes. The 1982 printing of the TRW book I have only mentions the hydraulic valve train items, though. Have to look for the earlier (and bigger) books I have archived (key word -- "archived"), plus the Petersen "Engine books" that started in 1965 (similarly archived). There might even be some Buick engine buildup articles in some of the old Hot Rod Magazines. Somewhere, outside of the normal GM/Buick literature, there is probably some publication that has the desired information. Just a hunch . . . NTX5467

The idle air bleeds and the drilled orifice "restrictions" in the fuel feed tubes can be clean and NOT the correct diameter for a correct (as designed) fuel curve (the "emulsion tubes", with the many holes in them, are not the ones to be really worried about, it's the solid tubes that have a hole in the bottom and the "orifice" a little above the end). With respect to the fuel feed tubes, in the one carb I had trouble with, I went to the hobby store and got a small selection of twist drills. I then started probing the bottom of the tubes with a bent-wire spark plug gap gauge. The holes kept getting bigger with each larger gap gauge wire, until the wire got bigger than the hole. I then took the twist drills and gently inserted each one in the hole to find the hidden drilled orifice. When I'd found the smallest one that would go in, I then gently twisted it and went a size up, or until I "got brass" when the drill bit was turned. These are important sizings, so openning them up even a few thousands of an inch can change things. Therefore, do not remove any more brass from the tubes than just to get a clean and accurate orifice size--same with the air bleeds in the air horn of the carb. Typically, you can use some carb cleaner (spray can, but with adequate eye protection) to get the air bleeds cleaned out (usually an accumulation of varnish from fuel vapors on that part of the carb), but the deposits in the fuel feed tubes are much harder to adequately remove (some sort of corrosion or "caking", usually). Most normal carb rebuilds will not address these issues, but some attention to details and a little time investment can make a lot of positive difference in how the job is done--at least that's the way it was in my situation--plus not having to spend MORE money on a reman or new carb. Enjoy! NTX5467

Is the problem perceived to be at idle or above idle? What do the spark plugs look like (i.e., sooty, discolored electrodes)? Does the motor oil smell of fuel? Although the float setting is important, I doubt it'll make the difference in running that you suspect it will. There should be some air bleed holes in the tops of the venturi clusters, one on each side. If they have closed down or decreased in size, it'll make that side's fuel circuit calibrations move toward the "rich" side of things. It doesn't take much of a decrease to make things really rich either, by observation. There should be one air bleed for the idle circuit and one for the main circuit (which typically are different sizes). The other thing to determine is if the spark advance mechanisms are working to their full design capabilities (i.e., correct advance at appropriate rpm levels). Not to mention the correct setting of the point dwell in the distributor. Also, make sure the vacuum passage to the "power piston" is "tight" and secure. Seems like the vac passage goes from the baseplate area to the air horn area, passing through the air horn gasket in the process. If the air cleaner wing nut was tightened down too far for too long, it might have "pulled" the air horn casting immediately under the air cleaner stud. If it's like some other '50s design carbs, the power piston is in the air horn and the air horn gasket seals the bowl in that area. Therefore, if the air horn casting is deformed "upward" in that area, power piston vac is lost and the power valve is open all of the time, just like it was supposed to be supplying a richer mixture under full power all of the time. The actual power valve itself is in the bottom of the float bowl. Also, under some cold ambient temps, the closing of the choke butterfly valve can create enough "pull" to suck the fuel out of the float bowl, past the failed air horn gasket and into the carb venturi area--which can cause a definite "rich" condition. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

In the "export" orientation, most did have lower compression ratios, but if the cars were going to Europe (where higher octane fuels were generally available to fuel THEIR own high performance vehicles) they could well have been USA-spec vehicles. With the generally higher cruising speeds in Europe, than in the USA, the hotter cams and related hardware would have come in handy. In some cases, the term "Export" or "High Power Equipment" were "code words" for "high performance part". In other areas, "Police" or "Trailer Package" parts were higher performance or HD parts too. Just depends upon what parts are being referenced and which manufacturer was involved. And, of course, having a motivated and knowledgeable parts counter person (at the dealership) could be a huge help! Enjoy! NTX5467

All of these early cruise controls only controlled the throttle. If you turned the unit off, either with the steering wheel (on the Fords) buttons or by applying the foot brake, the cruise "cut out" and it might well feel like the brakes were being applied, somewhat, when it was just engine vacuum slowing the vehicle. Enjoy! NTX5467

As you've probably already noticed, the "AMPS" gauge is the only electrical gauge on the pickup. The oil pressure is "manual" as is the water temp gauge. You can probably get a brass fitting and attach the oil pressure line, with the coupling in the middle (as produced) where the oil pressure sending unit would go on the Chevy V-8. The earlier Chevy V-8s that used the manual temp gauge used a hole in the water crossover passage on the driver's side of the front of the intake manifold for the temp sensor unit. The electrical units used the hole between the front two cylinders (in the cylinder head itself) on the driver's side of the engine, but that would be a little too much to have down there (for the manual gauge). With just a little copper tubing and some fittings, you could be closer than you think (to being able to get the hookups done for the "new" gauge cluster). Enjoy! NTX5467

Key thing on the speedo cable would be to get one that has the same hookups on each end and is the correct length. I suspect that one of the speedometer repair vendors might have or be able to come up with something of that nature. Might have to get into the '50s Chevy car vendor network for that stuff. ALSO don't forget to get the correct speedo gears in the trans for the rear axle ratio and tire size so that the speedo will be reading correct miles and speed. Depending upon how you did the 12 volt conversion, that will probably determine how you need to address the "AMPS" gauge in the cluster. An old time hot rodder mentioned one time that you could always tell when somebody converted a 6 volt system to 12 volts as all of the lights were "lit up like a Christmas tree", meaning the larger gauge wire used in the 6 volt systems was now carrying more "juice" than before, whereas a wiring harness designed for a 12 volt system would look "normal". Considering that the truck is not "stock", you might consider one of the Painless wiring harness kits to rewire the vehicle for 12 volts rather than depend upon the older wiring insulation materials to still be "good" and stay that way. In the "old days", JCWhitney used to have a "resistor block" to step down the voltage from 12 volts to 6 volts. Not sure how well they worked or if those things are still around. Back then, it was more about adapting rather than calling up and ordering already-modified parts. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Yep, they will . . . a local drag racer has a Buick 455 in a '79 or '80 Camaro Berlinetta race car. I don't know what it took to get it there, but it's there. It's quite competitive too! In other GM chassis back then, when they were used for different divisions, the front crossmember usually had all of the bolt hole locations (for the different division's engines) punched out and "ready". As the 2nd-gen F-body platform also had Pontiac capabilities (and the same Pontiac V-8s went in the same larger platforms that Buick engines went into), it's possible that it might be pretty easy to do--but be prepared to make a few mods if needed. So, if the Buick mounts and mounting pads are similar to the Pontiac (or you can use Pontiac "standoffs" to interface with the Buick motor mounts), it might be pretty much a bolt-in situation. In this case, "standoff" is the bracket that bolts to the crossmember and the motor mount (attached to the engine) bolts to it. One of the easiest ways to get power and not have the weight of the Chevy BB is to use a non-Chevy engine. The Buick 455s did not weigh that much more than the Chevy SB, which means the ride/handling will not be adversely affected (by more weight on the front end) and is much less expensive than building an all-aluminum Chevy SB V-8. The Camaros of that year (other than Z-28s) should have a 2.41 rear axle ratio, but it's still the normal Chevy 10-bolt rear axle. Should work reasonably well with the stock Buick 455, I suspect--provided it's reasonably stock. With the extra torque available, you probably will NOT need anything other than the 3-speed automatic that came with the Buick engine. There was a different crossmember that came with the TH400 Camaros, but you might be able to just slide your existing crossmember around and drill new holes for it. I think your existing crossmember will be "contoured" for dual exhaust pipes, so that should be no problem. The kickdown switch for the TH400 can also be setup for the Camaro's accelerator pedal mounting (as earlier 2nd-gen F-bodies came with TH400s). You might also need to get a new driveshaft made, or possibly get a new slip yoke for the front of the existing shaft. Finding a "hot rod friendly" drive shaft shop can be a real asset in this! It's all going to depend on the installed placement of the rear of the transmission. BTW, you might be able to swap out the rear tailshaft housing (and related items) from "long" to "short" or vice versa if it might allow the use of the existing driveshaft. Finding a transmission shop that knows about those things can be another real asset! Throttle linkage might not be that big of a deal, if you find the correct length of throttle cable. In some of the old GM parts books, they listed the length of the cable body, but you might have to search elsewhere for that info now. ALSO, don't forget the necessary chassis upgrades to handle the power! At this time, most brake pads are similar to the old 9C1 COPO Nova police pads (later '80s Cadillad limo applications), so make sure that's what you have (metallic). On the rear, 1977 Monte Carlos used 11" drum brakes rather than the 9.5" rear brakes the Camaro now had (the '81 Z-28 Export cars also had 11x2 rear brakes). One of the aftermarket performance brake vendors how had these ready to go, but I did that on my '77 Camaro (about 500K miles ago) and it makes a big difference, combined with the full metallic brake pads up front) in how the car stops and how much pedal it takes to make it happen. OR, you could use the rear disc brakes off of a last gen rwd Caprice. The same 11x2 rear brake backing plates that bolt to the Caprice 10-bolt rear axle are the same (other than they use two of the one side on the later '80s Caprices and run the parking brake cable BEHIND the rear axle as it loops around toward the passenger side, rather than the "front loop" that works the existing parking brakes fron the front), therefore, all of the '90s Caprice rear disc brake items should bolt onto the existing 10-bolt rear axle in the Camaro. Might need to get the existing master cylinder and maybe the booster too. Whereas the 11x2 rear brake conversion (either with '77 Monte Carlo parts or the aftermarket parts) does not require anything other than removing the rear axle shafts and changing the backing plates out--didn't even require new rear brake lines to the wheel cylinders on mine). I also highly recommend KONI shocks. They might be a little more expensive, but the do have the lifetime warranty that they will honor--if you still have the documentation. They ride better AND handle better at the same time, plus are adjustable for wear. From what I've seen, TireRack has the best pricing and availability. They work very well with BFG Radial T/As. Other chassis upgrades would be to replicate the Pontiac TransAm WS-6 chassis option sway bars, front and rear. Front is 1.25" diameter with polyurethane sway bar link bushings (from the factory back then!) and a .875" rear sway bar (although a .75" diameter bar will work pretty much as well). Although it's popular to lower the ride height on more recent vehicles, I DO NOT RECOMMEND that be done with the 2-nd gen F-body! At stock ride height, there's just barely enough space to put your fist between the road and the rear (under the rear floor pan) mufflers. Going any lower than stock can (and will) make it much more difficult to enter many driveways (residential AND commercial) without dragging the mufflers. It might be possible to tuck them up under a little more than stock, but it's already pretty tight under there already (the lh muffler usually being a little lower than the rh, to compensate for engine movement as it torques over "under power"). Walker has some replacement "resonators" that are the correct size (especially in the vertical thickness dimension), so shop the "cat back" systems for those cars ('70-'81) and then let the muffler shop do the hookup to the exhaust manifolds. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

I somewhat doubt that AWD was considered in the mix, only FWD and an upgraded platform (shared with the 2006 Cadillac DTS). The CXL I've seen had the Northstar V-8 and stickered for low $30s--which seems like a really good price for such a luxurious car. For the non-power-hungry, the normal 3800 V-6 should be fine and comparable to what prior LeSabre and Park Avenue owners had in their prior vehicles. The black CXS really looks good, though! It seems that the marketing and "content" operatives have tried to pare production labor such that fewer and fewer separate options are available as such--unlike in the 1960s and 1970s when you could pretty much mix and match to your heart's content. That's why some items are only available with certain trim options (which you NOW have to read the deck lid nameplate to determine). But, regarding the fog lights, I recall some '80s Regal 2-drs that had a different front bumper cover and had fog lights as part of the standard equipment whereas the 4-drs had front bumper covers with no provisions for the same foglights. 2-drs were supposed to be more "sporty" and need the fog lights? I think it would be VERY NICE if the new Camaro platform could have the wheelbase lengthened a few inches, have Buick sheet metal/amenities, and the "R" name on it!!!!! It's going to take more than GTOs and Camaros to make that plant viable, I suspect, so lets have a Buick variant too!!!! At this early date, I suspect that Lucerne production is not fully "up" just yet, but I would hope it would be soon. I'm not so sure about the Park Avenue owners wanting to purchase a smaller car that gets worse fuel economy than what they might be used to (in the case of the V-8 vs the SC3800). In reality, the interior dimensions of the PA might have been a little wider, but it was still pretty much a 4-passenger car for most owners. In that respect, the Lucerne will still provide that same basic amount of comfort and room--for 4 passengers. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

The relay should (hopefully) have some stamp or inked information on it, maybe even a color code. It should typically have "Amps", "Volts", and some manufacturer's identification on it. Once these things can be determined, then you might have to check some aftermarket sources for electrical parts. On many of the modern GM vehicles, they use one relay part number for many different circuits--usually three fo them ganged on a mounting bracket on the firewall. One OEM supplier of fuses, circuit breakers, and relays back then was "Littlefuse". I seem to recall they have a website that might have something you can work with, even if it takes a different wiring connector to make it work. Most of the late model GM OEM relays have a circuit imprinted on their case, along with a manufacturer's part number, name, and a GM part number in effect at the time the relay was purchased by GM. It's also possible that the same relay might also have been used on Cadillacs or Oldsmobiles too (with rh power seats). This can be evident if you can find the original GM part number for the relay. Unless it's got some particular mounting bracket, or similar, attached to it (which would generate a different GM part number), it could also be the same basic relay as is used on the driver's side seat. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Good point about the condition of the distributor shaft bushings! In a point system, they are always under tension from the points (at the top bushing) and moreso for the "HD" or "high rpm" points with the stronger spring (to diminish or eliminate) "point bounce" at higher rpms. In extreme cases, the rotor's contact could touch or break the contacts inside the distributor cap. On an electronic system, distributor shaft bushing wear should be pretty much minimized. No spring pressure from the points (that aren't ehre) means the shaft and balanced rotor are basically spinning freely. Seems like I remember seeing a method (using a dial indicator and spring tension scale) to measure the upper bushing wear. Of course, if it feels like it's too much when you move the breaker cam from side to side, it probably is. It's not too hard to change the bushings, IF you have the proper tools and can get suitable bushings, BUT you also have to be cognizant of the wear on the distributor shaft too--if any. This wear can be readily apparent after you use some Berryman's B-12 to remove the residual oil coating and varnish from the shaft itself. From time to time, some of the old Sun Distributor machines come up on some of the auction websites. I thought they were always a neat thing to have around (back when they were in popular use at major repair shops and some new car dealers). No worries about hanging over the fender or radiator to set points or to try to determine the distributor's advance curve (on the engine) or relying on what some instruction sheet says the advance curve will be. I have a "dial" timing light so I can check total advance with the distributor installed on the engine. Just need a reasonably accurate tach to gauge the curve, then. One major issue with an electronic ignition is how they might or might not work with the dwell tach you've used with a points ignition system. This can vary from tach maker to tach maker, so it might be advisable to check this out with the electronic ignition manufacturer. For example, I have a Radio Shack Micronta dwell tach that I bought circa 1972. It works fine with point systems but the engine "low rpm" scale reads only 1/2 value on a Chrysler factory electronic ignition system (circa 1972+), but reads accurately on the "high rpm" scale--not the best for fine tuning the idle mixture (at least by using the tach). With the strobe timing lights, you can mark the balancer/flywheel for each cylinder and then move the light from spark plug to spark plug to check the accuracy, as mentioned . . . plus see if you can read the part number on the fan belts when the engine is running (and the light hooked up). As I mentioned, I have one that has a dial to check advance measuremments with, which uses the vehicle's battery for power (I had a neat Sun self-powered unit that worked great as just a timing light, but it melted when inadvertantly left on an exhaust manifold for a little while--went back to the traditional metal case unit after that . . . with the dial). One other thing . . . if you want to use the harmonic balancer and mark it for advance and each cylinder's TDC . . . two things might need to happen to ensure ultimate accuracy. One, make sure the balancer's outer ring has not "moved" from when it was new. Two, make sure you index said balancer by actual TDC on whichever cylinder the timing mark is to reference. Sometimes, the keyway in the crankshaft nose can be a few degrees "off" from actual TDC of that cylinder. Similarly, the marks on the flywheel can be checked the same way. Only bad thing is that the cylinder head might need to be removed to do this indexing, using a positive stop TDC tool and/or dial indicator to monitor piston movement. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Two possible situations with the "export" designation. First, an "export" motor generally had a lower compression ratio to handle the lower octane/quality fuels available outside of the USA (at that time). Usually about 1 full point lower than what was production stock for the USA-spec vehicles. This was typical for all makes of vehicles back then. In order to make up for the power loss of the compression ratio, a hotter camshaft could have been part of the package too. That might keep rated horsepower basically where it had been for the higher compression motor. This is speculation on my part. Therefore, the "export" camshaft in a normal-spec engine would make it run more powerfully than the stock cam. Second, back in that time frame, each manufacturer had their own code words for "high performance part". In some cases, it might have been "Marine" (i.e., boat applications), "Severe Duty", "Police Interceptor", or "Export". In these cases, to know what you were getting required a firm knowledge of the specs of these parts and how they related to stock production parts. When the AMA ban on "racing" took hold in 1957, these "code word" parts became highly necessary as "high performance" and "racing" were bad words at the manufacturers--intensifying the "back door parts" that "appeared" on certain people's cars back then, or were sold quietly "under the parts counter" at the local car dealer's parts department. I'm not sure just what these kits might have had in them, but it could start with the cam/lifters and include a HD distributor, larger venturi/throttle bore carb, main and rod bearings of a HD material, and other "durability" items. I'm going on generalities here, from what I've seen in parts books and magazines over the years. There were also "Export" suspension calibrations too. Stiffer springs, stiffer shocks, HD wheels, larger sway bars, and related items, for example, as "export" roads were generally rougher than USA roads and the driving speeds on these roads were generally higher than in the USA. In later years, these might have transitioned into "police" spec parts. This might not be the "hard and fast" specific things you were desiring, but it might help explain things a little--hopefully. Enjoy! NTX5467

The first "electronic" or "transistor" ignition kits in the early 1960s used the points as "a switch", which is what they normally are, but with lower voltage across them. The lower voltage (as I recall) reduced the transfer of material from one of the contacts to the other one (point erosion). Some had a short duration HOT spark and others had a longer duration spark. Performance gains were claimed by all, but some worked better than others, typically on the (as noted) finicky foreign cars that seemed to always needing tuning to run their best. A hotter spark CAN happen with an electronic ignition system, but 40KV coils will work with points too. The system will ONLY produce the minimum voltage required to fire any spark plug at any given point in time, whether it's 5KV or whatever. In short, with a 30KV coil (generally what the stock systems would do), not every spark is of that voltage. As long as the spark plugs are easy to fire, that 40KV coil is just underhood dressing, but in a modified motor with 13 to 1 compression, it can be necessary (even though the factory systems did not have HP coils for those motors). The main thing about electronic ignition systems is "no maintenance" and consistency in spark production for each cylinder for many miles (or until the spark plugs need changing). When the point distributor is new, the lobes on the breaker cam are all well-defined and "sharp", which ensures a consistent dwell reading for each cylinder (within production tolerances). With time and wear, even if the rubbing block on the points is lubed each time a new set is installed, wear can make the "peaks" less well-defined from peak to peak and can lead to the situation where if you set the point gap to specs, the dwell will not be in spec--or vice versa. It's easy to see how much variation you can have if you chuck the distributor up in the vice and put a dial indicator on the contact points, and then rotate the distributor shaft to see how the point gap can be different from peak to peak (i.e., cylinder to cylinder). Just a basic wear situation! When the distributor's cam lobes get to that situation, the best "fix" can be an electronic ignition conversion kit. "Dwell" is a designed-in situation of the circuit board, for example. One of the first "high precision" electronic systems was the Mallory UniLight, which used an LED and a shutter wheel to replace the functions of the points. I'm not sure how the reman distributors stand up to the dial indicator test, though. Electronic systems also have a minimum voltage they need to work. If the battery voltage is not up to the min level, even if it turns the motor over well, NO SPARK happens. Points work with any level of voltage that lets them put a spark into the spark plugs. A good set of points in a good distributor (without excessive wear on the breaker cam), lubed and adjusted to specs, can work very well (as they did for us back then!), but some engines are not that easy to change points in (something we might have better tolerated when we were younger--or paid others to do for us). Also, when points were factory production equipment, most people just drove 12K miles/year and that was generally where points-plugs-filters were maintenanced--although they would last longer for many people. Basicly "yearly maintenance" of sorts. I concur that 25K would work too. In most of our vehicles, how soon do we now hit 25K miles/year? I suspect that many aftermarket distributors can be used, IF you can get them to be rather incognito when doing so. For example, use a black cap rather than a tan one, plus discretely hiding the additional wiring they might have. All depends upon whether you are going for strict originality or "weekend cruise" orientations. For quick starts, it takes the ignition system working in conjunction with a good-working carburetor to make things work. This CAN also be a function of which brand/heat range/electrode design/gap width of spark plug too! I know this by observation on a stock engine in one of my cars. Some engines seem to like particular brands of spark plugs too, by observation. Generally, the closer you can stay to stock in some modifications, the better off you are if you are going to travel away from the metro areas (and hot rod shops like where the modified ignition system was purchased)--one reason the GM HEI is a popular add-on for older motors, but "fails" the cosmetics test of originality in many cases. This is one area where being an informed shopped can be beneficial! There seems to be lots of differing orientations for the use of the same part. Seems that I recall people using the "orig" Pertronix have good luck with them whereas the users of the "enhanced" Pertronix seem to have variable experiences? Seems like THAT was a defining point in prior discussions of this nature? Just some thoughts, NTX5467

RWD 3800s were used in the last generation of Camaro and Firebirds. Aftermarket supercharger kits are available and reputedly put things up to about 300 horsepower. I recently found an ad to turbo the SC3800 (replacing the supercharger), seems like it was in either "Pontiac Enthusiast" magazine or "GMHighTechPerformance" magazine or similar. I suspect there are a good number of Camaros with the 3800 V-6 in them as the last years of production were either the 3800 or Chevy 5.7L V-8. I'm not sure if the blocks have both sets of mounting pads/lugs to go either FWD or RWD. There are lots of Buick 3800 performance websites out there. You might also check the RegalGS.org website for links. Seems like there's a 3800Performance.com website too, not to mention the links you might find from a Pontiac Grand Prix enthusiast website. Thanks for the kind words. Happy Holidays! NTX5467

In many cases, non-power steering equipped vehicles had negative caster to decrease the steering effort somewhat whereas the same vehicle, but with power steering, had "normal" caster angles. From what I've seen, the straight-line stability of additional caster might be a little overrated as vehicle aerodynamics can possibly be even more critical in that respect "at speed". What positive caster ALSO does is make the wheels more vertical with respect to the road surface as the vehicle goes around the corner (and leans)--look at a modern car with the wheels cranked all the way to one side and you'll see this effect. The inside wheel is more positively cambered as the outside wheel is more negatively cambered, such that as the vehicle leans, the wheels will be more perpendicular to the road surface. Seems like the 1962 era Lincolns had negative caster angles and all of them were power steering equipped cars, albeit typically "Ford noseheavy". Yet with a power steering car, the boost can be varied somewhat by the drilled orifice in the pressure line fitting on the back of the power steering pump. I don't recall any roadtests of that era talking about those cars being hard to run down the road (due specifically to the negative caster setting), when compared to similar Cadillacs or Chrysler Imperials of that same era (which had positive caster settings). Theoretically, the designed-in king pin angle (or derivative thereof for ball joint suspensions) and the caster would be at the center of the front tire's contact patch. Positive caster will put the caster "leading" the contact patch from that geographical centerpoint and negative caster will do the same in the rearward direction. Typically, the range of adjustment in many modern front suspensions (ball joint style, shim or eccentric adjustment designs) will put the max caster available at about 2.5-3 degrees positive. With the additional steering effort (and possible self-centering action increases) that more positive caster settings might require, taking advantage of the power steering system to compensate for these things was a "natural" situation. Possibly another selling point for power steering was the better stability (from the alignment settings in conjunction with the hydraulic controls and their "feel")? Not to mention the generally faster steering ratio which many of the later "integral" power steering gears employed--as compared to the generally 4-5 turns lock to lock of a typical manual steering vehicle of those times. Remember too, that the "design effort" had to be useable by a large range of people with highly varying amounts of arm and upper body strength. Not to mention the seeming (by modern standards) flimsiness of the steering wheels themselves. My gut suspicion is that a person of normal strength, with a freshly lubed front suspension in good condition, might not be able to really tell the difference in "at speed" steering effort between a negative caster setting and a positive caster setting--and the front tires inflated to about 30psi--on a vehicle with manual steering. But, in reality, it can depend upon what each one of us is used to and finds acceptable. For reference, you might look at what the middle-'70s cars used for alignment settings as these were the first mass production "radial-tuned suspension" from GM, starting in 1975. Then progress to the middle '80s rear wheel drive vehicles as that's when we got the more current generation/style of "all season" tires (with their more segmented tread designs). That's also when GM revised their alignment settings on all rwd vehicles to reflect basically a "zero" toe-in setting, now using "degrees" rather than "inches" for the toe-in spec. More frequent tire rotation was also specified for longer tire life. Other than the toe-in spec differences, I suspect the specs for your earlier Buick might be basically "in the ball park" when compared to the middle '80s GM rwd vehicles. If you don't know the specs, generally, set the toe-in pretty close to "zero" with modern radial tires, but just a little tow-in is all that's needed. Caster can be "zero" to a little bit positive. Camber will need to be pretty much "zero" also, but can be varied to compensate for road crown (side to side settings being different, aka "cross camber" spec). That should get you close. Now, with an earlier car (i.e., non-rack and pinion steering), the toe-in will probablly end up at about 1/8" (as the min factory spec). If the front end steering linkage and suspension bushings are all "recently replaced", then you can possibly take a little toe-in "out" of the adjustment and approach the basiclally "zero" setting. For stability reasons, there will always need to be a little toe-in rather than "pure zero". Just some thoughts from my observations over time, NTX5467

Back in the early 1970s when radial tires were still an "expensive" situation, it was mentioned in an article (about putting radials on cars they did not come on from the factory) about how the radial and bias ply tires reacted to various alignment specs. Basically, radials liked basically "zero" toe-in and were said to not be as critical regarding camber angles. Also be aware that "static" toe-in is the set-up for a more "zero" "rolling" toe-in (as the car rolls on the roadway). Radials generally (compared to bias ply tires) had decreased rolling resistance so they might not put as much stress on the steering linkage (causing deflection) as a bias ply tire might. Therefore, in order to get the true "zero rolling toe-in" setting, less preload (toe-in adjustment) was necessary. Camber is less critical, to a point, with respect to tread wear as the side of the tire that has the positive or negative camber will just deflect the sidewall more than the other one. This was back when the tread area of radials was notably stiffer than it is now. On current generation radials, with their wider treads and wider wheel rim widths, they seem to be more critical of camber than in the earlier situations of 78-series radials and 6" wheel rim widths. In other words, the more vertical the tire's sidewall contour might be, the more critical the camber setting will be--by observation. As for alignment specs on the earlier car, you might start out with the toe-in at the minimum factory spec for the vehicle and go from there, watching tire wear and such. Camber could be pretty much "to spec" for the vehicle. Caster will affect steering effort somewhat, so the factory non-power steering car's caster spec (possibly negative?) can be used. In the original radials of the '70s, it was noted that steering effort would be heavier when the vehicle is stopped, but once underway, it would get easier. When stopped, the additional tread stiffness can resist turning, but the lower rolling resistance would make steering easier once moving. If the tires are correctly dimensioned (compared to the original tires), then you might use 28psi for the basic cold inflation pressure, f & r. Maybe even put the front tires at 30psi with the rear ones at 28psi--which had worked well for me, but you might have different results. Make sure your suspension bushings are in good condition too, plus other steering /suspension components so that the car will drive as it should. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

I haven't been involved in what you propose, but one thing to remember is that if the existing cap is moulded to fit just "so", then putting any type of fabric or vinyl on it will increase the "build thickness" such that it might not fit very well anymore AND might not look nearly as good as you might want it to. Another consideration is that there are vinyls that are designed to be "expandable" vinyl so that they can be stretched and glued over curves and such. Takes an experienced heat gun operator to do that right! Now, one possibility is something that came out in the 1980s, but I haven't seem anything of lately. It was a "plastic flocking" coating sprayed on like paint. One of the first applications for it was to refinish Chevy/GMC C/K interior door panels (which were plastic and subject to crazing with age and exposure). You sanded the plastic down, prepped the surface, and then shot the flock onto the existing panel. It came out looking pretty good, kind of like a thick suade of sorts. It was someting that you could also use for customizating under the hood and inside the vehicle too. At the time, it seemed pretty neat, but I don't know what's become of that process or if it's still around. Something of that nature might be an option? Seems that what it has is an epoxy base that contains the colored plastic "stands" that is sprayed on with a conventional (back then) spray gun. Lots of different colors and possibly custom-match capabilities. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Some neat pics! Before we got "pushbutton" cruise controls (on the turn signal lever) or buttons on the steering wheel, the Dana/Perfect Circle style of cruise controls had some sort of variable setting either in the speedometer head (GM) or on the instrument panel (Chrysler) where you turned a knob or dial to "a value" where you wanted the cruise control to engage. Once you activated and engaged the cruise control, you could vary the speed just by turning the knob up or down, similar to how you can "Accel" or "Coast" with current systems--all without using the accelerator pedal. Seems like Chrysler went to their "modern" turn signal level cruise control in '68 and Ford started using steering wheel pushbuttons in that year also. Both had a "Resume" feature too and continued the orientation that once engaged (usually above about 30mph), you could vary the speed up and down without using the accelerator pedal. Ford had a vacuum servo that worked the throttle (similar in concept to what GM later used) whereas Chrysler used a one-piece mechanism with a stepper motor and a "lost motion link" on the carb linkage. A good while back, a friend bought some obsolete parts from a Chevy dealer. In the "stash" was a GM Factory-Authorized accessory cruise setup for a '66 Impala-type car. It mounted the servo on the core support and used a long linkage that ran to the carburetor's throttle level. Seems that somebody has robbed the interior controls from it a long time ago, but the instruction sheets were still there. Enjoy! NTX5467

BEFORE you get too deeply involved . . . The 2004 GP motor is a fly-by-wire electronic throttle control motor . . . as in NO throttle cable (as the '96 Regal has). That's ONE issue by itself! This feature was on the GPs and not the similar Impalas or Regal LS for 2004. And THEN there's the issue of computer sensor interfaces between the 2004 GP motor and your '96 chassis/computer setup. As for physically fitting, I have no doubt the 2004 GP motor would fit the vehicle, provided the 2004 motor has the same mounting pads that will interface with the '96 engine/transaxle mounts. In 2004 and all of the fwd Impalas used an aluminum front subframe/cradle assembly whereas the '96 Regal was "normal" welded steel. I'm not sure if any of the engine mounts changed in that respect or not--something a dealership parts person could determine for sure (possibly an aftermarket source might also, but possibly not quite as specifically). All of the transaxles should be the 4T60E/4T65E family. There are about THREE different axle ratios in that family so you'd need to check the codes to see what you might happen to find -- OR need to match your vehicle. IF the '96 Regal has an "empty" engine bay, you'd ALSO need to determine just how cleanly they removed the prior engine/transaxle assembly. This would relate to just how handled the engine wiring harness -- just unplugged or snipped or ripped. That harness, alone, can be in the neighborhood of about $700.00 and they are VERY specific as to application (year and engine) and what they plug into. As for the plugs on the end of the harness segments, they might physically look the same as what you might have, but they can have different index tangs inside of them. Something you won't find out until you try to plug them into where you think they should go . . . and they don't. You might score a good deal on a salvage yard engine and transaxle, but it's those OTHER THINGS that can run the cost up quickly. Possibly up so far that it soon becomes apparent just why that car's still "unpowered". Unfortunately, we're not in the 1980s any more. Some things might "fit", but the hookups are much more involved than anything we had back then (or before!). Many pitfalls that can be very expensive holes to dig yourself out of. And that doesn't even come close to considering how many computerized advances have been made on the vehicles since 1996 either!. Two sensors might look the same or similar, but could operate on different voltages and voltage ranges--one reason for the color codes and index tangs in the connectors, possibly. And the computer has to understand the information it is getting from these sensors too. Not to say that this is not a "doable" situation, but it can easily turn out to be a money and time "pit" that might result in you getting a spiffy car that you've now invested more than it would otherwise be worth (if it still had the original engine/trans in it) as a used car trade-in. If you've got the factory service literature to tell you about the electrical system and such (which will require the '96 Regal service lit and the 2004 GP service lit, if you can still get printed copies from HELM, Inc.), a deep-pocketed credit card, and unlimited time to spend, it becomes your judgment call as to what you do. And, unfortunately, you might feel you've done a great job and still end up with an illuminated "Check Engine" light that just won't go away. It would be unfortunate to get everything all put together and have a pesky "Chech Engine" light and computer codes that seem to be "from Hell". A "Check Engine" light that would very possibly make it impossible to pass an emissions inspection to make it street legal to drive and/or purchase license tags for. In many states, when a vehicle changes hands, it has to be emissions tested before the registration can be completed. And we haven't even addressed the issue of how the vehicle's title might be "branded". As in "Salvage" or "normal" or whatever, or if the repair shop has a "Mechanic's Lien" that resulted in their now having legal possession of the vehicle and can sell it. You might get the VIN and see if you can get one of the dealership service people to run a VISS on it (which will tell where it was sold and what warranty work was done on it, if it will go back that far). Then possibly a VIN check with some of the services that can track where the car's been (insurance claim wise) or whatever. My gut suspicion is that you'd be better off with a car that is "whole" as is and go from there. But it's your judgment call on the cost/time issues and how it will all interface. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Back in the early days of catalytic converters, the GVW "break" for having or not having the converter was 6001 lbs (the base GVW was about 5000lbs back then so if you ordered heavy duty rear springs, it meant it was more for "work" than "play" and it did not get the converter or related hardware). In later years, the GVW break was raised to 8600lbs as it seemed that almost everybody was getting the 6001lbs GVW 1/2 tons (later called HD 1/2 tons or "Big Ten" in Chevy models). Just like we had two 1/2 ton C/K chassis truck designations (via optional equipment), we also ended up with TWO 3/4 ton C/K trucks by GVW ratings. The base 3/4 ton C/K truck had a GVW of about 7200lbs. Where the 1/2 ton 2wd trucks had 5 lug wheels, the base 3/4 ton had 6 lug wheels and the HD3/4 ton had 8 lug wheels, bigger brakes, heavier duty rear axles, etc. In some circles, if you had a LD3/4 ton, it was a "pretend" truck and the HD3/4 ton was the real deal workhorse. In more recent times, the 3/4 ton trucks had some items specific to them, regardless of GVW ratings. For many people, as the thresholds of performance have been raised, the HD3/4 ton has probably replaced their prior 1-tons as the capabilities of 1-tons have increased so greatly in more recent years. Also, 8600GVW trucks are not required to post EPA fuel economy numbers. In some situations, a current C/K 1500 4-door short box pickup has tended to replace the station wagons of old, as current Suburbans have also tended to do. Plus . . . RWD, V-8, and "reasonable" highway fuel economy (when compared to the earlier station wagons). Sure, the non-diesels will never get 30mpg on the highway at 70mph, but they also fit a particular need for a particular customer base that places size, comfort, towing/hauling performance, and utility over ultimate fuel economy -- everything's got a price attached to it somehow, just depends upon which account you want to put it in. Enjoy! NTX5467

Ron, by observation, when "management" (or whoever) decides that a vehicle is "on the way out", investment in the vehicle and its advertising drops off big time. When the sales brochures get bland, serving more of a utilitarian function than to really promote the vehicle, the handwriting is on somebody's wall. In the "self-fulfilling prophesy", "no or decreased investment" = slow sales and the resultant justification in pulling the plug on the particular vehicle (or vehicle line!). Orchestrated? Hidden agendas? Who's responsible? Who Knows??!! In the case of the Camaro, the sales brochures got pretty predictable. One great centerfold shot with a vintage Camaro, maybe even the requisite Police Camaro having a Mustang GT pulled over, and then "just the facts" in plain pictures and descriptions. Then, after the future demise of the car came out, the loyalists send their cards, letters, emails to GM in protest. The very next year, the brochure was much more "exciting" with some fancy and expensive-to-do action shots. Even mention of national Camaro clubs on the GM website! Still, no obvious change in the funeral plans ( but possibly a "second coming"? ). Similar things happened with the '90s era T-birds. A pretty decent car at a great price point, but a bland sales brochure. Ford obviously knew when the tooling would wear out and planned things accordingly. No effort was seen to keep the iconic Thunderrrbird magic alive . . . until the last generation of T-birds was launched. I concur that the last Bonneville was a much better car than the other Bonnevilles (fwd) that came before it. The new Charger is a pretty neat car. It's got all of the "buzz things" that car people tend to get excited about--including rear wheel drive and optional HEMI power. The 3.5L V-6 is a good running engine (or at least "was" in the 300M and Intrepid) that should do pretty well on fuel economy. So what's not to love about it?? A few things you have to live with every day, like the Chrysler cruise control is on a separate stalk that you might hit instead of the turn signal lever (it's pretty strong too!). The indicator light for the cruise control is on that little stalk too--a faint goldenrod colored light "dot". Unlike the GM cruise control, you have to turn the Chrysler cruise on every time you start the car (or it at least appeared that way) rather than it being "On" until you turn it "Off" (as the GM cruise is set up). Many GM cars have trip computers as part of their standard equipment. In the Charger (according to the owner's manual), you have to order a somewhat expensive option package that includes steering wheel controls for the radio just to get a trip computer. And, unlike the Impala SS V-8, it will not tell you how many cylinders are operational at a given point in time. And it's got some "square" aerodynamics that do not help real world fuel economy one bit. Sure, it looks great and muscular and American, but combined with the "road hugging weight" it also carries, performance and ultimate real world fuel economy will suffer. Still, it weighs close to what the Cadillac CTS weighs. Ahhh, that little Cadillac with the 3.6L V-6 of similar power to the Chrysler 3.5L V-6 . . . but something must have shrunk those Chrysler horses compared to the GM horses as the CTS whups up on the 300Touring in acceleration (or did the road testers leave the Chrysler's traction control, aka ESP, system on during the tests??). The cruise control items and knowing how the ESP system can impact performance are things you find out by actually driving the cars for a few days. In the case of the Charger R/T, the intervention threshold with the HEMI was a good bit higher than it was for the Chrysler 300Touring of last year. Just some thoughts and observations, NTX5467

I concur about the feel of knowing you're "in the secondaries", but there are different "styles" of mechanical secondaries. The more common one many know on the Holley 4bbls, which are straight mechanical in nature (some Chrysler-spec OEM AFBs were the same way whereas the GM-spec OEMs and the current Federal-Mogul AFBs have a counterweighted air valve above the secondary throttle blades) and then the mechanical secondaries on the Carter AVS (Edlebrock "Thunder AVS"), Carter ThermoQuad, and Rochester QuadraJet (the later model spreadbore). The secondaries are still straight mechanically actuated, but the air flow is modulated/controlled by the air valve flap over the secondary throttle bores, which also move a pair of metering rods on the TQ and QJ to also control the air/fuel mixture in the secondaries. Not quite as involved as this might indicate, as there is also a mechanical (adjustable) spring pressure on the air valve that must be overcome as the valve opens for additional air flow (just enough, but not too much). The vacuum secondaries on the Holleys are also tuneable. Holley has a kit of springs (color coded) to vary at what point they let the secondaries open and also how quick they open. It can take some road time and is a little more involved than changing the spring preload on the QJet or TQ or AVS, but not nearly as involved as grinding the counterweights on the air valves in the AFBs. Key thing is to open these air valves enough that the engine is getting all of the additional air it needs under the particular power condition, but also not give it so much that it bogs. On my '67 Chrysler 383 4bbl (OEM AFB, back then), it's a smaller 4bbl of about 525cfm. I could floor it and open all 4 bbls from idle and it would not bog at all--just move. When I went in and smoothed the throttle bores and venturis with sand paper (to get rid of the casting flash and "gasket match" them), then I'd get just a hair of a hesitation when I did that, but only if I went all the way open from idle. Rolling it out a little and then using that last 10 degrees of throttle openning worked well (after the clean-up). I've heard of people having vac secondary Holleys that would open the secondaries under part throttle conditions (usually under high load in a towing situation with a larger V-8 and deep gears in a 1-ton chassis truck). In these cases, it was not openning as they normally would, but either "open" or "closed" with similar power/fuel economy relationships. To me, that would be a case where the secondary spring would need a change toward a stiffer one. Usually, you end up changing the spring to get the secondaries to open sooner on a street car and sometimes, as they are "as demanded by air flow bias"-controlled, if the engine really does not need the added air flow, they don't open at WOT. In driving, the vac secondary Holley feels like a two barrel in throttle pedal feel, or in more recent times, a fuel injected vehicle. When GM went to TBI on their light trucks in 1987, there were complaints from the 454 owners regarding top end power (the trucks also had a single exhaust rather than a dual exhaust of prior years). The owners expected to get that "4bbl rush" when they were crusing at 75% of throttle and needed that last little bit of power (and the "4bbl feel") . . . and didn't get it. The fact that they didn't have a 4bbl any more didn't really sink in, it seems. There were enough complaints about the different throttle pedal feel that GM put out a service bulletin. It stated that with a TBI set-up, 75% of throttle resulted in 90% of max air flow into the motor. Therefore, when they used to be right at the edge of getting into the secondaries, they were already pretty near where they'd be "in the secondaries" if it still had a 4bbl on the engine. So, there needed to be some adjustment on the part of the user in this situation. It could also have been that they were so impressed with the added driveability and lower rpm power with the TBI setup, they didn't really know just how much power they were actually using (until they went for more and it wasn't there). Funny thing was that people raved about how much better those TBI pickups ran compared to the '86 carbureted trucks. Then, at the first oil change, there were complaints about "poor fuel economy"--but that's another story. Enjoy! NTX5467

Most of the "power circuits" were activated by manifold vacuum dropping past a certain level (which relates to "load" on the engine rather than rpm). With respect to "road speed", this can also relate to vehicle aerodynamics and tire rolling resistance AND rear axle/tire diameter interfaces. And don't forget that more powerful engines can "loaf" at higher vacuum levels where smaller or less powerful engines will be more "strained" at the same road speed. In the more modern automotive repair literature, the "power valve" is called just that (as it enriches the fuel/air mixture below certain manifold vacuum levels for additional power, with less fuel economy in the mix too), but in some of the earlier literature (prior to the middle 1960s), it was also called an "Economizer Valve" (being that when it was closed, it helped fuel economy by not adding any extra fuel). Before we had metering rod carburetors, all carburetors were "fixed jet" and it was a technical advance when they could have an auxiliary valve to add extra fuel into the fuel/air mix under conditions where it would be beneficial to do so, but lean things back out when economy was needed--without the driver having to do it. This, generally, let the main system be jetted leaner for better economy. Kind of like the "advance" that varying the spark advance in relation to manifold vacuum (via the "vacuum advance") on the ignition distributor (over what the springs/weights already did--which was another "advance"). Many times, the "high speed overheat" issue can be related to water pump impeller speed being too high and/or undercapacity radiators and/or insufficient air flow through said radiator at those higher road speeds. Lots of variable issues relating to vehicle design and engineering for each respective vehicle/engine combination. Might even be a "retarded" spark timing issue or an "over-advanced" spark timing issue--at that particular rpm and load situation. Sometimes it's best to drive slower than when those issues become operative! Enjoy! NTX5467