NTX5467

The Y-block intake valves are not "sunk" into the chamber anymore than other engines, just that the intake is too close to the side of the combustion chamber as they were built. The same thing exists if you put 2.02" intakes in a Chevy small block head (for a 327 or 350 or 400) when 1.94" or 1.72" valves came in them--the edge of the 2.02" valve nearly touches the side of the chamber, which is how you can tell the factory 2.02" heads as they have an additional radius cut in that side of the chamber (a machining operation) to open up that area to unshroud the valve for better breathing. Without those extra cuts, the breathing advantage of the 2.02" valves would most probably be nill. Usually when we talk about valves "being sunk", it's due to too many valve jobs sinking the valve further into the port than it should be. Usually, power losses can result too, but it might not be too significant in a normal motor. "Cylinder pressure" would relate to "cylinder filling". It's related to volumetric efficiency and fuel efficiency, but not the same thing per se. Related to rpm more than throttle openning. Kind of analogous to ram tuning of the intake manifold, in concept. Might also relate to the "power range" many camshaft makers use in their camshaft descriptions. Yet in this case, it's usually related to camshaft timing events more than anything else. Some engines are more critical to this than other, possibly. Back when the engines of the later '60s were designed, there were some design aspects that, as mentioned, might not have been fully understood until the engines were out of production. Considering how things transpired back then, nobody probably did any further research to find out why they worked so well or why when the engine size was increased, the "sweet spot" went away. Obviously, the Buick 430 was a "sweet spot" engine size for larger Buicks (from the way people have talked about them), kind of like the glowing comments about '72 Chevy C20s with the big block 402 V-8. Some engine combinations "just work". Enjoy! NTX5467

Congrats, Roberta!!! You get a picture of that "signing"??? It IS good to hear that Flint will still be the "V-6 Capitol of the World". Over the past few months, there have been many references to the "old" 3800 and how antiquated it allegedly is and should not be in anything Buick or GM sells. Mainly in some of the "big time" GM-oriented websites (which seem to be run and very active with "younger people", including high schoolers, it appears). To hear them tell it, the new HF 3.6L V-6 ought to be in everything to further put GM on the map as a "high tech" corporation. In their take on things, if it doesn't have OHCs, it doesn't matter. Yet, if it's a V-8, pushrods are OK. I also suspect that few of then have ever driven or experienced TORQUE in their young lives, with all due respect. One of them was obsessing about the Lucerne's 3800 having 195 horsepower rather than 200 horsepower! Some are aware of the huge amount of aftermarket parts for the 3800, but others don't seem to care or understand WHY they exist. Their answer is either the HF OHC engines or a V-8. Such a pity! They also apparently have not looked at the dyno curves of the Buick 3800 and the Chevy 3.4L V-6s. The reason the Buick "drives" better is obvious when looking at the torque and horsepower curves. The Chevy V-6 is somewhat wimpy by comparison. The newer 3.5L Chevy Vortec V-6 is better, but it's still not got the Buick's torquey feel to it--even if the horsepower is similar. Another distinction that's lost on the young 'uns and their "numbers". They claim that the HF 3.6L ought to be in the Lucerne and LaCrosse as Lexus has OHC engines in them. YET they also fail to understand that there is a HUGE following of Buick owners that actually want and desire the mix of power, economy, and reliability that the 3800 continues to offer, in a consistent manner. Nor do they understand the production cost advantage the 3800 offers. Quite an exceptional combination! Unfortunately, the 3800 does have some harmonics in it that the newer 60 degree V-6s don't seem to have--even the current balance shaft 3800 motor. It doesn't bother me but it might bother potential customers. YET, if they'd ever drive one and take it on a trip (watching the Instant Fuel Economy readout on the trip computer, if the car has one) they'd realize that they can have Buick size, comfort, and luxury AND get fuel economy that's better than many smaller vehicles can offer--including the imports with fewer cylinders. I haven't driven anything with the 3.6L V-6, but it seems like a stronger engine in rwd applications than the power rating indicates. In the fwd configuration, it does give away a good deal of power to the SC3800 it replaces--don't know about ultimate fuel economy though. The 4.2L I-6 is one neat motor, with full CVVT supposedly coming in the future. I concur that they are a little sluggish off idle, but then it's still a 250 cid (basically) engine pulling a 4000lb+ vehicle. I have driven two T/blazers (from the National Emerald Aisle at DFW) in the past few weeks. The first one did 20.15mpg average with lots of freeway miles and not using the cruise control. After I picked it up, I did a short mileage test on it (using the cruise) and it got 22mpg. The second one, a 4x4 in 2x4 range, seemed to run better and got about 2mpg less. Not too bad, all things considered. Of course, the V-8 would be less. The young 'uns also advocate the 5 or 6-speed automatics. Guess they haven't been to GMPowertrain to read about them! I still believe that a well configured 3-speed automatic and a V-8 with a broad torque curve are still pretty hard to beat. The THM700s make a decent transmission, but that gorge of a gear ratio gap between 1st and 2nd is really felt on the smaller engines (including the 4.2L I-6) when the engine has to lug along at the bottom of 2nd gear. Having a 2.48-type gear ratio as a 2nd gear would have been better. 3.09/2.48/1.72/1.00/.68 would probably work pretty well. The OTHER reason for the 6-speeds is obviously for fuel economy reasons, having "the right gear" in the lower speed ranges means less throttle for a given acceleration and better fuel economy and emissions. As one Powertrain engineer mentioned (in an article I saw recently), the 6-speed will also take the place of the CVT and will allow for more power transmission that the CVT ever could. Not to mention one architecture supporting many different engines (with internal trans clutch configurations related to engine power, just as there used to be THM400s that went behind 250 cid I-6s and 350 V-8s and 455 V-8s). Yet it still seems like "things" would be pretty busy as the 6-speed trans does its thing, especially compared to the 3-speed and THM700s we're used to. I get the impression that many "press" and "media" people are so jaded that they seem incapable of understanding that some really great engineering is already on the market and any future improvements will be marginal--at what cost. They seem to fall for the "newer is better" orientation, kind of like it has to be the "latest and greatest" to be "worthy" (which WE know is not always the case). Be that as it may . . . End result is that the flywheel doesn't care where the power to turn it came from, just that it happens. It doesn't know about OHC or whatever, just that something causes it to turn. Kind of like many customers, they just want the engine to start and run when they want it to, maybe even lay some rubber in the process . . . I think it would be nice if the 3800 could, as was mentioned somewhere, get the DOHC treatment as the 3.4L Chevrolet DOHC motor did--a totally add-on situation to the existing OHV short block. BUT the other situation would be whether GM desired to tool up for a HD transaxle to handle the power (stronger than the 4T65E-HD but not as power hungry as the 4T80E). Kind of sounds like the story about the proposed factory turbocharged Nailhead in '62 and the DynaFlow . . . Maybe, out of respect . . . there can be a 3.8L version of the new HF V-6 family that would be exclusive to Buicks! Plus a turbo??? RWD . . . somewhere????? Maybe by 2009, somebody can get together an "event" to mark the schedule end of the Buick 3800 V-6 engine family??? Maybe not as highly produced as the Chevy small block V-8, nor as generally well known, but fully as legendary for being one of the BEST engines in the world (even if it has pushrods). Maybe a commemorative pin configured like the one I recall about a Buick engine hovering over the earth (prior Buick engine advertising from the early 1900s)? Another book of automotive history will be closed--in our lifetime. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

The "compression ratio" we normally talk about is "mechanical", but the articles I referenced mention "effective compression ratio" and compare it to the "mechanical" determination. We used to talk about engines "coming on the cam", as in when they got their sweet spot in power and response as the rpms climbed. This was more noticeable with wilder cams (with respect to engine size) rather than the more tame "2bbl-type" standard cams in V-8s. When that rpm range was reached, throttle response was much tighter than at the lower rpms, and things just "got right" in the engine area. THAT would relate to the "cylinder pressure" being better in the "on the cam" rpm ranges. In the Nailhead Era, there were many things being tried in the combustion chamber/piston interaction area. Remember seeing those wildly domed pistons the aftermarket manufacturers had back then? 13.5 to 1 compression ratio too? It turned out to be one thing to have a higher mechanical compression ratio, but another thing to make sure the flame front got to "the other side of the dome" area (hence, the "fire slots" that some had in the dome). These would also be things that would influence detonation issues, in some cases. Not to mention the smaller intake valves possibly resulting in much higher incoming mixture velocities that would result in a more turbulent combustion chamber. Key thing was to get everything to work together, but some things that looked like they'd work well didn't really work that well. High mechanical compression ratio combined with highly effective "cylinder pressure" could well increase the octane requirements of an engine. I suspect that is where the "effective compression ratio" comes in. Kind of like cylinder pressure being less at cruise (basically closed throttle) than at full load WOT, except the main influence in this case would be camshaft event timing. A side issue in this situation would also be how well the cylinder head's ports work, not to mention exhaust manifolding and the under-the-car exhaust system. For example, you can use the cam event timing to somewhat compensate for sub-optimal port activity. If you look at the Pontiac 389-421 camshaft timing, they were longer on duration and shorter on lift than what you might expect. As it was later determined, the port flow past about .425" "stalled", so more lift was fruitless. The only other way was to put more duration (area under the lift curve) in the cam event timing. Then after flow benches became less exotic, it was determined that their RA IV heads (with the killer looking round ports!) didn't flow significantly better than the normal ports did--WHOOPS--so much for "looking good". Other engines (as in Ford FE series and Oldsmobiles) needed much higher lift for a given duration, it seemed, to work right. And the shrouded intake valves on the Ford Y-blocks were possibly an early application of "swirl technology", but not fully developed or understood back then (yet it was suggested that that side of the combustion chamber be "clearanced" for better flow, just as the small block Chevy heads with 2.02" intakes come from the factory, even if they are in the same casting as what would normally have a 1.94" or 1.72" intake valve). Of course, for the Y-block head to "breathe", it took the supercharger to get that accomplished, which also "worked past" the alleged flow deficiencies of the intake ports. Enjoy! NTX5467

Let me make one things "perfectly clearrrrr", I'm NOT that "W". Yep, the GTO reminds me more of "Lumina" and other GM vehicles of that era, unfortunately. I CAN say (after sitting in one, finally) that the seats are much more comfortable than the current Grand Prix (which seem to be configured more for the "leaner" 28-somethings than otherwise. Not to mention that there are FOUR buckets in the GTO, which means the rear seat passengers have something other than seat belts to keep them situated. "Sleeper" vehicles do have some merit, especially if they are not red, but at least most of them look more exciting than the new GTO. To me, the added power of the current car is something of a moot point, but it does matter to others. What seems to be important is that the 2nd year car should have been the first year car, engine wise, but it wasn't in the mix. Kind of like when the word of the '78 Corvette Silver Anniversary models "leaked" out, everybody wanted one and paid premiums to get one. Six months later, when the Pace Car version came out, THEY were hot and the SAs were dead. Same thing tended to happen with the first Silverado SS454 pickups, yet the 2nd year trucks were much better as they had the OD automatic trans, and the 3rd year trucks had the better graphics on them. I guess you don't show your full hand right up front? I suspect that a much better marketed Buick version of the Monaro CV8, but emphasising refinement and power rather than "boy racer nature" (even if it's "incognito") might work. The HF3.5L DOHC V-6 has replaced the Buick 3800 as the "other" Holden powerplant, so if it could make about 280 horsepower (from a better exhaust system configuration and a little electronic "tuning" and get close to 28mpg on the highway, yet with all of the handling capabilities and luxury interior appointments it would need (other than just the seats), it might be pretty decent. It could also showcase the proposed turbo version of that engine (which can also have a 3.8L displacement). Then it could be the "HF" GN? Of course, if the 5L40E transmission is strong enough, it'd help too! Unfortunately, if WE could influence GM's product planning, it would be another 3 years before those things might appear on the street. I suspect the input would result in the "standard 'Thank You' email" reply, which can also mention how important customer input can be regarding future products. I saw the Mustang convertible last month. It looks good, just like the coupe does, BUT that back seat makes my '77 Camaro look spacious (rear seat leg room wise), even at similar wheelbases. To their credit, trunk space is preserved--just don't order up the Mach __ sound system with subwoofer. Kerkorian's buying common stock, portfolio managers are having to sell their GM bonds (due to stipulations of their employers about what kind of bonds they can or cannot put in the portfolio, as in "high yield" versus "investment grade"). Just another couple of bumps in the onward and upward highway to prosperity, which seem to happen about every 10-12 years. What CAN be good is to send communications to high level GM operatives and Board Members as to your support of future Buick products (generally, with some specific mentions of desired models), about how if they don't build new Buicks you'll have to look elsewhere (not to other GM products!) or to used Buicks for your personal vehicles. There is an extremely strong case for NOT killing any more GM vehicle lines (especially now that it's documented that former Olds customers typically did NOT migrate to other GM vehicle lines!), yet the beloved "analysts" keep talking about downsizing GM's vehicle product lines. And of course, any future Buicks NEED to look like BUICKS! Keep the faith! NTX5467

Seems like Eastwood also had a kit where you dipped the part in the "solution" and applied some electrical current to make things happen? Rather than the "spray can" approach. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

I wonder if those mechanisms might be similar to what was used on the same vintage Oldsmobiles and Cadillacs? Possibly some different mounting hardware and linkage, but I suspect the basic actuator would be the same across the Buick, Olds, Cadillac car lines. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

"Dream UP"???? There's a really good "image" of a LaCrosse coupe at www.cwwcardesign.com! While the more vintage members of the hobby might desire to hold out for "GranSport", the "GN" and "GNX" nomenclatures are identifiable for a huge demographic of "younger" people. In reality, the GTO (even with a little "too high" price point) is a fantastic combination of equipment. Yet it's wrapped in a somewhat non-descript sheetmetal package. There's nothing that really says "muscular" or "powerful" in the styling, unfortunately. The hood scoops help, as do the GM Accessories grill inserts, but those rear tires (and related cutouts in the quarter panel) just hide under the quarter panels. For a "muscular" contoured side styling, think Olds Intrigue, which has bulges and contours around each of the four wheels. Similar to the way '55+ Buicks used the full wheel cutouts to have a muscular look back then. The basic platform and interior are really good, but the rest needs help. Other than the styling issues, the things I read in the forums indicated that several other things conspired to hurt the initial frenzy of the last GTO. Part of this was the dealers' fault for trying to deal with customer inquiries in the same manner they would as if the car was built in Lansing or Kansas City. Nobody wanted to talk about "allocations" with the customers before they took their downpayment money either. Nor could they seem to check to see when a particular car would be delivered. One customer might get the "we don't know when it'll be here" dialogue when a dealer 30 miles away had 4 GTOs sitting on their lot--right then. To me, with the huge halo orientation of the current GTO for Pontiac, they should have set up a Port of Entry Delivery Area so that customers could get their cars (with fully completed paperwork done beforehand, kind of like going to the Corvette Museum to get your Corvette rather than the dealer, picking up your new Viper at the Viper Plant, or doing a European Delivery of a BMW or Porsche) there rather than wait "forever and a day". There also should have been some sort of customer communication from Pontiac to the customer regarding when the car was built, put on the ship, and arrived at the Port of Entry. Sure, this would have taken the dealer out of the loop (after writing the deal and collecting the money), but it would also have most probably resulted in much better public relations and customer satisfaction--back when EVERYBODY was hot to trot to get their new GTO. The problem was that everybody (except the customer) was seeming to treat the car as "just another car" rather than a "highly special car". Might have been that a designated person should have dealt with GTO orders rather than just anybody that happened to talk to the potential customer? A designated person that could take the time to check just where the order was in the production network or where the completed vehicle was in the delivery chain of events. But all of that's now "history" . . . It might help if the GTOs price point was closer to $30K, but I don't know if that might have helped things along either. Even as it sits, it's a verrryyyyy nicely trimed-out car, with a somewhat useable back seat too. Yet it should not be at the same price point as the 2005 Mustang. As good as the new Mustang is done, the GTO is a luxury grand touring car by comparison. Enjoy! NTX5467

Yes, it's the "quench" area. From reading Vizard's explanation, it would appear that this dimension could be related to some sort of sound wavelength interaction. With the tighter dimension, the resonant wavelength of the situation could not develope, but with the larger dimension, it could happen. That's the only reason that I could figure out, which might or might not be accurate. Nothing was mentioned with respect to "stagnant" airflow in that area, which basically can't happen as the quench area (might be termed "squish area" too, in this case) adds more turbulance into the wedge-shaped combustion chamber. From even the 1980s, there has been massive increases in combustion chamber technology and theory. Some came from NASCAR racing, others from emissions research. "Active" airflow is highly desireable, for many reasons. In the earlier 1960s, the big breakthough related to "stratified charge" combustion chambers. Now, we might call it "high swirl", but the whole deal with the SC chamber was that a leaner section in the middle of the chamber would be fired by the centrally-located spark plug, which would then ignite the richer mixture at the edges of the chamber. Richer as it was deliberately spun and the centrifugal force would cause the heavier fuel segments to probably be out there rather than in the middle of the vortex. End result was the possibility of leaner mixtures and better use of available fuel. But after everybody got back into NASCAR and larger engines, it seemed that this research was not heard from again--except possibly with diesels. Other possible variations might have been the Mitsu MCA-jet engines, or some Honda engines, that had a smaller intake valve that could open to add swirl to the mixture which came in through a "normal" intake valve. I found an SAE transaction (presented paper) that listed research on what engines had what octane requirements. This was done in the later 1960s time frame, when many engines were still in the 10.0 to one compression ratio range. Interestingly, some of those engines had measured octane requirements that were more like 94-95 Research Octane (the only "number" we worried about back then) rather than the suspected 98-100 Research Octane. Remember the "dial an octane" gasoline pumps that some companies had back then? End result, it was measured that combustion chamber design influenced an engines octane tolerance, regardless of mechanical compression ratio. Like some of the other engineering discoveries in those '50s and '60s time frame, it would be decades later before the reason for these things would be discovered and exploited. In the combustion chamber design area, when Chrysler started doing "California" emissions systems, it was based in "calibration modifications" rather than add-on devices. There were fuel curve modifications (leaner with higher idle speeds), retarded spark at lower speeds, and possibly a few other related items. They were able to make those things work due to what was stated to be the particular combustion chamber design orientation they used. When Ford and GM's divisions tried similar things, they did not have the same level of success, which meant the early add-ons of air injection pump systems, biasing the vacuum to the distributor's vacuum advance system, warmed air to the air cleaner, and such were necessary to meet the earlier CA emissions standards. For "bench racing" activities, there are some interesting Tech Papers that you can link to via the Silvolite Piston website. One relates to how camshaft selection can affect effective compression ratio. Some highly interesting articles in that list! Just some thoughts, NTX5467

When the whole unleaded fuel "thing" started over here, there was much concern over vintage engines and valve seat recession--especially in the RV/motorhome areas. Later concerns focused on the load on the engine rather than other issues. Not to mention whether valve rotators were used on the particular engine. With higher nickel valves (no rotators), it was noted in the Buick engine seminar at the Flint Celebration meet that that is how Buick got away with not having induction hardened valve seats in the earlier 1970s. On the earlier engines, figure in softer valve lifter actuation (generally) and softer valve springs (generally, due to design and not age and wear) so there is less force keeping the valve seated in the cylinder head. A better (possibly) cast iron combined with higher nickel valves, lower stresses on the engine, and "easier" driving can result in what Joe has experienced. "Better by design"? Regarding octane, a Research Octane Number of 98 could well equate to a Posted Octane Number (R+M/2) of 93. Leaded or not. "Research Octane" is a definite number as "Motor Octane" is--averaging the two numbers results in the posted pump octane number we see in the USA. Detonation can happen in any engine with any compression ratio. As David Vizard discovered, it has more to do with the distance between the top of the piston to the combustion chamber at TDC than purely mechanical compression ratio. By his research, you can have a higher compression motor with .020" between the piston and the combustion chamber and no clatter, but with greater than .020", it can clatter even with lower compression ratios. By normal reasoning, the 8.5 CR motors we had back then ought to run on 87 posted pump octane with no problems, but they wouldn't in some cases. Going with a little more spark advance and higher octane could be cost effective and more fun too--just depends on the engine and combustion chamber/piston crown design thereof. Remember how the older engines would clatter and buck if you tried to lug them down too much in high gear, even with an 8.0 compression ratio (or less)? End result, the way many of us drive our vintage "leaded fuel only" vehicles in our modern "unleaded fuel only" environment, there should be no real issues with using unleaded fuel. There are other anti-wear additives in some fuels that work similar to lead anyway. If, per chance, you're going to rebuild the complete motor, it might be advantageous to go ahead and get the hardened valve seat inserts put into the heads. In reality, the engine's probably had at least one valve job in its life, which might result in sinking the valve too far into the port if another valve job is done. Therefore, getting the hard seats installed by a competent machine shop can fix that situation and also get things done so you don't have to worry about it again. Just depends on the prior life of the cylinder heads. But if you're going to be racing at high rpms or pulling a full tilt load RV trailer, that's not the same as a 70mph cruise across the desert in AZ in July in a Buick (which would be much less stressful on the engine). Enjoy! NTX5467

One important aspect of reading codes is to make sure the code list you are looking at MATCHES the model year and brand (i.e., Ford, GM) of your vehicle. One thing OBDII was supposed to help was to have all codes work for all vehicles and years that were OBDII compliant. Prior to that, codes would change from year to year, for the same malfunction, plus a Chrysler code number did not work for anything but a particular Chrysler product, for example. The other thing is that there can be several codes that will all come up at once (setting the Check Engine Light), but with only one "primary" code that caused the other ones to set too. Just like in the old days, you have to have a certain understanding of how the systems operate and inter-relate to each other. So, rather than taking the codes "at surface value", sometimes you have to look for a failure scenario to see what might have happened first, which led to the other related codes being set. The scanner might get you part of the way there, but it might not take you all of the way in some cases (is a misfire caused by a fouled spark plug, a defective plug wire, a failing coil or ignition module, or even a low voltage issue). In another scenario, if you do have a misfire registered, it can cause a momentary "rich" condition which the oxy sensor (engine monitoring) would read as "rich" and try to adjust the mixture to remedy. Which could also set several other codes as the computer tried to compensate for the momentary "rich" signal it was getting. End result, you still have to wade through the codes to see what the original culprit was. Otherwise, you chunk parts at it until all of the codes are gone. Of course, for all of the possibly unnecessary parts that were replaced, at least you know you won't have to worry about them failing any time soon. Having the "snapshot" capability for scanners is a great thing. It can help pinpoint particular problems if they might be intermittent or only in certain operating parameters. On a vehicle we had in recently, it had a misfire that changed cylinders as the rpm range changed--consistently. An intake manifold fixed that one. The way GM's computer system reads "misfire" is by noting changes in crankshaft speed per revolution. A misfire will result in that revolution being slower than when there is no misfire, for example. This advanced capability led to GM being able to offer more manual transmissions than some other makers--at that particular point in time. Be advised, though, that if you go to an auto supply and get them to scan your car for codes, or do it yourself with your own scanner, when you take it to a mechanic to get it fixed, you can also expect him to use HIS scanner to do the same thing (possibly for a "diagnostic" charge too, which might be refunded if he repairs the vehicle). In other words, you can use it to diagnose and do some of your own work, but don't universally expect a mechanic shop to not do their own diagnostics (prior to a repair being estimated) just because you used your scanner to do it first. If you're into "tech" tools, don't forget the non-contact infrared thermometers! Some really neat gadgets! Lots of diagnostic possibilities. Lots of fun too. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

Greg, I knew that Jon retired from his position with Chervolet, but he then appeared on "My Classic Car" and escorted Dennis Gage through one of the warehouses which house many of the GM concept and former show cars, plus some "heritage" vehicles. It looked like he was somehow involved in that operation now, as something of a "post retirement" employment (which GM seems to like former executives that are into cars be involved with--somebody they trust and who also might have a "vested interest" in seeing that things are done correctly). That show aired a little over a year ago. They even took some of the low mileage, stock vehicles out for a test drive in an area park (might have been a part of the proving grounds or something). One was a first year Skylark convertible! This was in the pre-GMHC days. I really liked the time they got Jon Moss and Ford's Colletti together at the drag strip. It was highly amusing as Jon coolly towered over Colletti and confidently smiled as the modified Camaro beat the more highly modified Mustang (that Colletti said could beat any Chevrolet!). The Mustang's 429-style motor broke rocker arms and the Ford guys had to scour the whole MI area to find some. The Camaro snapped an axle shaft at the starting line and the whole assembly was changed inside of 30 minutes. But the real "cooker" was when Colletti was looking at the Camaro. Last time he saw it, it had a different intake setup and he felt his Mustang would eat it alive. When he walked over to see the Camaro, a "That isn't the same intake you had on it last time!" remark came out, like "Whoops! Might have to work a little harder today with this one". Highly amusing! It was priceless. Enjoy! NTX5467

Typically, the first "3" would be 1970 and the second "8" was usually the first year that part was used. Therefore, a 1978 part, if all things "work" as they used to. ATC, er AutoTemp (which would be AutoTempII at that point in time), was only available on Chrysler C-body cars and Imperials. Everything else was "manual a/c" with dedicated push buttons (to change the "mode") and a slide lever for the heat adjustment. AutoTemp controls were different. Enjoy! NTX5467

Is the "expanded" part related to handicapped users or is it more related to "go more places it normally would not" expanded mobility? What year and model? Just curious . . . . NTX5467

You might check on www.allpar.com, in the K-car sections. Might even be some forums in there you could pose this question to. With those TC-type tops on the LeBaron convertibles, how did they interface with the existing convertible top and related mechanisms? Enjoy! NTX5467

Is the "slop" you mention due to the input shaft wobbling in its bearing or from excessive turning of the steering wheel before the pitman arm moves? Provided the gears are not worn out, you should be able to adjust the gearbox to provide a reasonably "tight" situation. Typically, one adjustment is on the input side of the gear (what GM types call the "adjuster plug") and will keep the steering shaft from moving up and down when it's turned (in reaction to it trying to turn the other gears inside of the gear box). Check your manual for the correct amount of "preload" or "adjustment" in that respect. Next, set the "center" adjustment tightness, usually with the external stud/jam nut adjustment. Getting this adjustment too tight will not let the steering return to the center easily (as a result of the caster designed into the front end geometry), so if the steering does not return to center by itself (after completing a turn), that adjustment is too tight. Given that your gearbox has been correctly assembled and the gears are not totally worn out, the new bearings and such should return it to reasonably "new" condition. At least that's the way it's supposed to happen. I remember one weekend cruise I went to where a lady with a '72 Chrysler was having problems with her steering column having too much play in it. She mentioned that she'd had it to several mechanics and they could not find a problem, yet there WAS one. On that column, in the "joint", there are two "shoes" that fit into appropriate slots in the recepticle of the joint. They look to be "symmetrical", but if you put them in wrong, you'll get excessive looseness. Removing them and turning them around will fix the problem. Perhaps something of that nature has happened in your situation? Just some thoughts, NTX5467

THANKS for that great information! Seems like I read (in one fo the Pontiac enthusiast magazines, a few years ago) that Pontiac Division had an extensive archives of vehicle information. I got the impression that they could go "farther" with inquiries than other GM divisions could. Thanks again for the GMHC information! In the future, could it be a venue for marque car show events and meetings? Is Jon Moss still in charge of "the fleet"? Just curious . . . Perhaps we could have a link to the GMHC, Roberta? Thanks, NTX5467

I think the holes in the crossmember are already there for the "standoffs" for the various GM engines that went in that chassis back then. These "standoffs" would be specific to the engine in that chassis only, typically. They also have probably been long gone from the GM parts catalogs too, so salvage yard is the only hope for them. You probably also have the Turbo200 trans too. Better get a BOP case Turbo350 or you can probably adapt a Turbo700 (OD) unit in, BUT unless you also change the rear axle ratio to something like 3.42 and rebuild the driveshaft, the existing (most probably) 2.7 range rear axle ratio would be way tooooo high for the .69 OD gear ratio in the Turbo700. The Turbo350 with the existing gear ratio will end up close to the same high gear mph/1000rpm anyway, just without the low gear "takeoff" situation the Turbo700s 3.09 low gear would enhance. The Buick 350 runs much better (especially in stock trim) than similar Chevy 350s. The Buick 350 will make a good engine too, even in stock trim. Best thing would be to find a Buick 350 V-8 with the Turbo350 trans attached, hopefully from that same body series so you can also get the necessary engine (frame side) mounts and the transmission crossmember. Then you'll have to find somebody to freshen each one before you use them. Happy shopping! NTX5467

This might be a little too "logical" in nature, considering some underwritters' policy language, but one reason the "antique" policies are written with much less expensive rates is that the vehicles are not supposed to be exposed to "perils" to the extent a normal vehicle would be. Hence, the "locked and secure garage" situation and mileage/year limits. I suspect that if you read the fine print, any "competition of speed" activities are not covered, if that's important. As mentioned, some items that might be open for interpretation should be clarified by the empowered representative. Documenting such "riders" or interpretations can be important, but these operatives typically can't change the wording of the policy or related coverage. Two thoughts . . . read the policy and see if you can comply with their requirements . . . "use" the vehicle within the stated guidelines of the policy. If you need to make a claim and can verify that your INTENT was to completely comply with the policy's provisions, that should count for something (even if you might be fudgin' a little). In some cases, your regular insurance provider might now be offering antique vehicle coverage. If you've already got a good working relationship with that agent (and their employees), that might count for something if you have a claim that might need a little additional "interpretation". At least then, if they try to deny coverage or whatever, you are right across the desk instead of at the end of a phone cord. Be an informed shopper . . . Enjoy! NTX5467

That's ONE neat website!!! Thanks for posting that link!! LOTS of memories!!! Thanks, NTX5467

What type of information are you searching for? Might not the Olds museum in Lansing be of help? There should be a link to it on the Olds Club of America website, I suspect. The link to their website is on the left hand portion of the BCA Forum page. It could well be that the information you desire is available from existing archives in the Olds Club website or articles in their club magazine. It is highly possible that the GM Heritage Center research section is staffed by volunteers (as other similar operations are) AND that it's only open during the week and "normal business hours". Not to mention (as with other similar operations) that a "donation" is required to initiate research or there is a fee schedule for such. Enjoy! NTX5467

After looking around at the whole "antique insurance" thing for a good while, there are some ins-and-outs of that whole affair. One of the main issues is the "locked and secure" parking location, which usually means a building or garage rather than a carport. Plus the public parking lot issue, as ReattaMan mentioned. The driving mileage limits can be negotiated somewhat, as one of our chapter members found out. He put down something like 4000 miles/year on his form to JCTaylor many years ago. He got the form back "declined". He called to see why. He was told it was the mileage, to which he replied that he only took the car to weekend cruises, which typically were not "around the corner" down here in Texas. So they went ahead and approved his policy. Key point is that it's not going to be daily transportation, but still used in the orientation of car club events and such. In another situation I read about in a car club newsletter (from the Houston, TX area), the group was getting together a "tour" to the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn (driving from Houston in their vintage Fords). A call was made to JCTaylor regarding coverage. As it was a "club event", the coverage would be intact. "What about if we exceed the 3000 mile limit while on the trip?", they asked. They were instructed to send a letter to the company stating their club event, noting the starting mileage on the vehicle when they departed. When they returned, they were to also send a letter to the company with the ending mileage on the vehicle. Thereby making the trip mileage not part of the basic mileage limit of the policy. Seems like the NSRA (street rod association) has insurance they sell to their members, which has coverage for spare parts and "under restoration" vehicles. In other words, vehicles that are not yet road ready. Basically, ask lots of questions and probably ask to see a copy of a policy, so you can read the fine print and make an informed purchase decision. Of course, the agreed value (which is better than the previous "stated value" situation) orientation seems to be the current "best" situation. Also inquire about how a claim would be handled and processed. As mentioned, look at how you desire to use the vehicle and buy insurance that fits that criteria, even if it's a normal policy. Hagerty has some really neat commercials on Speed Channel. You also need to research their Roadside Assistance Policy (which they advertise). It has some good points, but it can still cost money to use. Enjoy! NTX5467

I was just going by what the magazines said "back then". Thanks for the great information!!! Looks great!! I never did run cross-refs on those earlier cars, but did discover that the DeVille, LeSabre, and Park Avenue (current generation) front subframes are the same (part number wise) a few years ago. Not that I would be excited about a NorthStar V-8 in a LeSabre, but if it'd clear the hood, that whole front subframe will interchange. Which further means that just changing the mounts would change the powertrain "module"--just like the "old days", of sorts. At the time, the Citation X-11 was the "hottest" car of its type from GM. Some neat chassis items, plus some neat factory wheels. One of the few applications of the Holley staged 2bbl carb too (which was a little pricey back then, approx $700.00 retail). Thanks again!! Willis

If you can find a copy of the "Standard Catalog of Buick", it might be in there. The Somerset Regal was the two-door companion to the 4-door Regal in those years. Came with 4 cylinders or a V-6. Pretty classy cars! "Limited" would be the additional trim level, but I don't think it was a separate model as such, but the VIN decode at the dealership would determine that. In many cases back then, the "Limited" nameplate would be the only one visible, other than Buick. Made it necessary to determine WHICH "Limited" it was, unlike the 1958 models most of the customers back then might have remembered. Enjoy! NTX5467

I don't think GM or any other OEM North American manufacturer ever spec'd flex hose over moulded hose. Many times, the flex hose is the "replacement" hose when the correct factory-type moulded hoses might have not been available locally, or were discontinued. Think of the flow issues of the coolant flowing over the interior of those flex hoses rather than the factory moulded hoses. Not to mention possible aeration. In some applications, GM did use some straight hose sections with bent tubing in between then. Seems like some middle 1960s light duty truck engines were that way from the factory. Enjoy! NTX5467

The 3800 might "fit", but the other GM fwd cars that did use the 3.8 and 4.1 Buick V-6s had longer front end sheet metal to compensate for their wider (90 degree) bank angle rather than the Chevy's much narrower 60 degree bank angle. In any event, if the engine was not spec'd for the particular car from the factory, it would be "modified"--although it would still be a Buick Family engine. I believe the 400 Point Judging rules address that issue. I saw a Pontiac A6000 (in one of the Pontiac enthusiast magazines) that somebody had put a Chevy 5.7L TBI pickup truck engine into. It fit and with many internal mods, the Turbo 125 transaxle was still in it. Had some beefier axles built for it too. Be that as it may . . . Also, I'm in CST, Mr. Earl. You're in EST? That would explain the noted time issues. Y'all enjoy! Willis