NTX5467

The 5.0L V-8 in a Riv will be a 307 Olds motor. They did not use the 5.0L Chevy 305 V-8 in those cars. Major differences! Carb will be a Q-Jet, with an electric choke and possibly a mixture control solenoid if it has an oxygen sensor in the exhaust system. There should be an 8-digit number on the throttle body that would match what's in the GM Parts database for a "Production Number" (which can or cannot match with the replacement service number). For that year, it'll probably be in "Charts" instead of the regular catalog listing. There might have been only a few listings for carbs on those motors, but you do need to find the stamping production number to make sure which one you have. It's there somewhere, under all of those vacuum hoses and such. Enjoy! NTX5467

Well, Dave, Dollar and Thrifty (Chrysler Corp, V2-now in V3) and National (typically GM) have used their associations with the manufacturers to feature particular cars over the years. Yep, a purely promotional situation for all parties involved. And yes, those rental promotions can be good for everyone. Otherwise, they wouldn't mention that they "featured" cars by whatever manufacturer in their tag lines. Back when Chrysler had ALL of their plants running at full capacity back in their glory days of the middle 1990s, the dealers were very mad because they wanted products and the Dollar and Thrifty were allegedly getting cars the dealers should of (or felt they should have) gotten. Yep, there were some battles there over who got what, as I understand, but those two rental companies (which were units of Chrysler at the time) continued to get their cars. When they hit their mileage limits sooner than anticipated, they put Ford products in their place until the new Chrysler stock arrived. I haven't looked at production vs rental fleet sales, but I also know that when I got to DFW to the National Emerald Isle or any other similar place National has, it's NOT full of Centuries or Regals as some might suspect. Sometimes I have to hunt for one instead of there being several to choose from! There ARE some Toyota Corollas in their fleet too, just as there are Mitsu Gallants. Just my observations. In fact, I felt lucky to find a Grand Prix at the Indy National when I went to Kokomo, too many Mazdas and smaller imports! Sure, you'll probably see some more aged drivers of Centurys. Regals are aimed at younger people. As for availability, the larger rental areas at the metro airports will have more cars than the smaller or neighborhood facilities. Each one will have a variable fleet due to constant comings and goings from the rest of the country and such. I'll concur that the rental market can be a double-edged sword in some respects, but I suspect that National and Avis have an easier time renting Regals than Hertz does Thunderbirds. It's necessary to feed the other used car markets and also allow the rental companies to have a nice car for their clients. If there is any "dumping" as such by GM to those markets, I haven't heard anyone complain (except the media people) enough for it to stop. Sure, Pontiac's moved or is trying to move away from it, but where they will be heading is the personal/corporate lease customers via GMAC and similar. Same thing, different market. Enjoy! NTX5467

When does a product become "aged"? Sometimes it seems that happens after it's been out for only two years, depending upon who's doing the talking. Granted, the GM midsize platform appeared in about '97 with the Grand Prix, but look at how OLD the current Mustang platform is (like '78 Fairmont!) or the fact that tne GM C/K/R/V light truck chassis went from 1973-1991 . Even the "new" imports are not ALL new either! Therefore, to me at least, this whole argument about "aged platforms" is not completely viable. As for the rental/fleet business, that's another area that seems to be "trashed" in the same vein as the "aged platforms". Those buyers or contractors for vehicles need vehicles that are inexpensive to buy/own AND maintain AND will not be in the shop all of the time. Plus, they might want something that's nicer than just a plain car too. Wouldn't you really rather have a Buick company car than a Chevrolet (for example). The other side of the rental vehicle deal is that it ALSO can be a marketing tool for the auto manufacturers. If someone that had never driven a Buick heads for the National Car Rental Emerald Isle (for example) and finds a Buick Century there, they might well choose it over a Mitsu or Saturn or other vehicle that is available for them. This is a potential Buick customer in the making. There is also the possibility that someone (like me) that uses National (or other firms that have GM cars) regularly, I'm inclined to specifically look for a Buick rather than a Chevrolet or whatever. Therefore, there are valid reasons that Buick needs to be in the rental car and fleet sales arenas. The additional side of the rental car business is that that is a good part of what supplies those GM Certified Used Cars that are on the lots. You can't afford a new Century, Regal, LeSabre, or Park Avenue? Then wait until they hit their mileage limit and then they'll head through the various circuits that lead to your local dealer's used car division--provided they are in good enough condition to be considered for such. So, if I were an auto manufacturer, I'd definitely want MY cars out in the fleets and rental car stalls of major rental firms. But I'd also want to have a healthy balance of sales of new vehicles to the general public too. National has even done promotions in partnership with Buick and Pontiac over the years. In those promotions, they featured either Pontiac Grand Prix GTs or Regal LS (with Gran Touring suspension, leather interior, and CD radios) for their Emerald Isle customers. Seems like there were even some frequent flier miles in the mix when you signed up for Emerald Isle status too. There are also some of the other major rental companies that also have Buicks too. I might recommend that when you read those accounts of the evil rental car sales and such, that you also understand that that's not the whole story. The writers seem to want you to believe that that's the ONLY place that Buick, Mitsu, Pontiac, or others can "dump" their cars that no one wants to buy. In reality, those cars are sales contracted to those rental companies (so many at specified dates) so it's not like they've got lots of sales bank cars that they must get rid of somehow (as Chrysler was known to do in the '70s and such). As for fleet business, that's typically been a Ford stronghold for decades--one that GM's making inroads into fracturing and cracking over the past couple of years. Just some thoughts, NTX5467

While the stated intent of this neat little bit of legislation had more to do with people running through the Toll Tag lanes on the turnpikes (people who do not have paid and active Toll Tags, that is), there are some other aspects that can have some greater implications as to how they are enforced and by and against whom. It's really a big can of worms, in one respect. Considering some of the editorial letters in the newspapers, it just might be possible that there will be some "policy" orientations issued for the enforcement operatives. Good intentions that went awry, it seems. In the mean time, I suggest that Texas residents go to the Texas Online area and research this particular new statute and make sure that "you're legal". Just a few thoughts (there are more, but . . .) NTX5467

In consulting my 1981 edition of the Walker Exhaust catalog, they didn't list any parts back then for a factory dual system until the 1966 Wildcat (6000)/Electra (8000). Not to say that a factory dual system did not exist prior to that, just that they ceased to list it in their catalog by 1981. The muffler listed on that '66 system is #21605 (2.25" inlet/2.0" outlet/4"x9.75" shell diameter/25" overall length (includes the length of pipe sticking out on each end)/21" shell length). The rear muffler clamp/hanger is listed as #35505 and includes the hanger & 2" clamp. This muffler was also used on many similar single exhaust systems on those full size cars too, provided it was not mounted transversely behind the rear axle. The rear section could or could not have had a resonator, depending on which way the customer desired to go. There is another muffler listed for similar vehicles to the '66s mentioned that used a different muffler, one with 2.25" inlet and outlet, but with 25 5/8" overall length and 20 7/8" shell length. Same side inlet/side outlet as the #21605. This muffler is #21617 and the same rear hanger is listed for it also. I'm not sure if the system under your vehicle is stock OEM or if it's been "muffler shopped", so I'll pretend it is productioin OEM stuff under there. By the earlier '60s, most of the factory systems were the aluminized pipe for greater rust resistance and longevity. If your vehicle has been "ms-d", then what they possibly used was plain old cold rolled steel pipe of whatever diameter they had in stock, to go with whatever muffler that was a close fit to what was already under there. From my observations, that was what usually happened unless the customer specified otherwise. I also need to state that my own preference for exhaust systems is factory OEM configuration with clamped fittings--which I could conceiveably replace in my shadetree shop with the car on jackstands AND with normal hand tools. Most muffler shops prefer to weld the pipes so that they will stay put, position wise, which can be fine (provided they positioned them correctly to start with) but it takes later muffler replacements out of the realm of the do-it-yourself category, typically. In all fairness, there are some really talented muffler shop technicians out there who can do great work with their pipe benders and such. But by the same token, there are many that will not take the care to try to do a good job for someone that wants something of the stock configuration. Your experiences might have been different than mine have, which I respect also. Now, resonators were put at the back of the system to make things a little quieter, overall, and more befitting of a luxury automobile. They also were prone to early rust-out as that is the last part of the system to get hot enough to evaporate the condensate from the early operational periods after start-up in the morning. My observation is that unless you're headed for a concours judging situation, or a 400 point judging situation, they can be easily replaced with the "resonator eliminator" rear pipe. That's your judgment call. Pipe material? As stated, the OEM stuff should have been aluminized from the factory. Alternatives would be stainless steel or cold rolled steel. From what I've seen in the few stainless systems I've been around, they can be LOUD and TINKLY in sound--but they don't rust. Cold rolled steel will be quiet as the aluminized steel pipe, but will rust easily and quickly. Aluminized would be better, I suspect. Painting with a high temp paint prior to installation could make things look better too. Pipe sizing? For normal driving the stock 2.25" pipe, even if it goes all the way to the back, would be fine. It looks like the rear pipes will end up being 2" by the time it gets to the rear bumper even with the 2.25"/2.25" muffler in the OEM system. With a stock system, I suspect the 2.25" rear pipes would make for a slightly lower pitch exhaust note than the 2.0" rear pipes, but not with much power gain. I don't perceive the need to go to 2.5" pipes on a stock engine either, plus they will cost more and necessitate having hangers that will match that larger pipe diameter. I also suspect that 2.50" is larger than the outlet in the stock exhaust manifolds too. Headers? I suspect there are not readily and inexpensively available for that engine/chassis combination. Of course, you could get someone build some, but that's going to be pretty expensive due to the time involved to configure and weld the u-bends so that everything works well and is well made too. Personally, not recommended. If there might have been some high performance cast iron manifolds for the 2x4bbl motors, then I'd think I'd try to find some and hope they cleared everything in the Electra chassis. To me, that would be the best alternative, but unless there's other engine modifications, it might not be very cost effective, but cheaper than "built" headers, not to mention more trouble free. Muffler upgrades? To me, the Walker Dynomax would be the best choice. Quiet but with better flow than stock. I suspect you can find one that matches the length and pipe size/configuration of the factory mufflers. Maybe even a little more performance sound when you crack the secondaries on the 4bbl, but quiet at cruise. Others might have other orientations. When using aftermarket mufflers, the main architectural landmarks of the system will be where it meets the lead pipe from the front and how that interacts with the configuration of the floor pan over the rear seat. Usually, if the muffler is of a shorter length, the rear pipes can be easier configured, but that just depends on how the front pipes might be angled/shaped. If the muffler's shorter, then a short piece of pipe can be added to make the total build length be what it needs to be to hook up to the over-the-axle pipe and keep everything from hitting something. Also be sure to find some quality muffler clamps as there are some really cheesy clamps out there now. In many cases, the factory systems were clamped and not welded (with respect to the pipes behind the y-pipes on the single exhaust systems). Anything that was welded would have had to have been welded on jigs before it got to the assembly line and would have possibly slowed down the line speed whereas clamped systems were much easier to do. If you are considering buying complete pre-bent systems from some of the exhaust system vendors (as advertise in The Bugle, for example) then some input from others who have dealt with them might be informative. As for carb/distributor calibrations, with the 2 or 2.25" systems mentioned, everything probably will be fine as is and not much different than what you've already got. 2.5" and headers would probably require some recalibration of the carb. Hope this might help . . . NTX5467

The left handed studs did have an "L" stamped in the center of the stud, only thing is that not too many people who were unfamiliar with those cars KNEW to look, but did after the nuts would not come lose. Then, those that did know about them stood by and snickered. Seems like the theory about using them in the first place had to do with centrifugal force causing them to allegedly loosen with use, hence the tightening motion should be in the direction of normal wheel rotation. I suspect that if they were only marginally loose, that could happen, but the combination of clamping force AND friction between the lug nut and the wheel's lug nut tapered hole probably prevents them getting loose when the tightening direction didn't match normal wheel rotation. Enjoy! NTX5467

Thanks for that update! Hope things get straightened out, too! NTX5467

Matt's comments are pretty accurate from other things I've read on that subject. The rubber bushings are there for a purpose, which is isolation and allowance for the parts attached to them to flex as they do their job. There are places on a vehicle where the urethane items can be beneficial (as in the sway bar link bolt attachments to the bar and the control arm) and others where they might cause some irritation. As there is less flex in them, they will transmit more of the road into the chassis and body of the car plus an increase in impact harshness that otherwise would be absorbed by the rubber chassis bushings. The other factor not mentioned is that from my few experiences with replacement bushings, the ones that will be used to replace the old ones will be of firmer rubber than the assembly line production items. When the cars were new, there was much emphasis on smoooooothness and quietness. By the time the vehicle had enough age and time for the bushings to deteriorate, those orientations were not as prevalent as when the vehicle was new. So, the firmer rubber from heavy duty applications on the vehicles got things firmed up when the original rubber items were replaced, which brought back that "new" feel again. I do advocate the use of the urethane bushings for the sway bar link bolts. Using them makes the bar act like it's mounted solid and is effectively 20% stiffer. This keeps things flatter during cornering and might make it a little stiffer on a rough road where the wheels aren't going up and down at the same time, but what little bit you might notice will be a good trade-off for flatter cornering. I think that if you consider where the main loads and impacts on the suspension are, those would be the place for rubber (i.e., lower control arm attaching points on the front suspension) and the urethane might be used for the upper control arm pivot points as those points basically are just pivots. Plus the extra stiffness up there might better reinforce the suspension for a little better handling precision without much increase in impact harshness. Also, it's easier to get a grease gun on them. In the typical GM rear suspension, about the only place for a urethane bushing might be on the ends of the track bar. Whatever flex there is at the ends of the lower control arms needs to be there, from what I've observed. If the flex isn't in the bushings, it means the control arms will have to absorb that flex, which can cause metal fatigue and other not-so-good things. Adding a rear sway bar between the lower control arms will firm things up too, if that's a possibility on the vehicle in question. The other consideration to aid handling would be a more performance oriented tire. The added stiffness in the sidewall will firm things up a little plus make the handling a little more responsive. Whether you upgrade to 16" or larger wheels with their respective tires is your choice. In a race car, things are very different. First thing is that the body is reinforced with a stiff roll cage. From the main cage, there will be pieces that go forward and rearward of the passenger cage area, where the suspension items will mount or be reinforced. Then, there will be solid, greaseable pivots for the suspension items. Solid mountings to solid bearings/bushings for the maximum of feedback to the driver with respect to how hard the chassis is working for the demands the driver is putting upon it. That feedback is vital in that situation. Most of the articles on the urethane bushings will tell you how much difference they made in the handling of the vehicle. Usually, there's some other upgrades in the mix too (springs, shocks, wheel/tire combinations) that might not be evaluated individually, but as a complete unit compared to the stock items. Sometimes, the word "extreme" is used as to the increased chassis performance orientation. To me, the blending orientation I mentioned above makes more sense to me than just replacing everything with urethane. I feel such a blending orientation would be the best of both worlds without damaging the vehicle's structure over the long run--plus being more fun to drive and enjoy the vehicle on a daily basis. Others might have other orientations, but you could do a lot worse than just replacing the existing worn/aged rubber with fresh rubber items. Before the urethane bushings were around, I saw an article in one of the car magazines to take small finishing nails and drive them into the rubber bushings to effectively firm them up by compressing the rubber inside the steel sleeves which held them. Another option . . . Just some thoughts, NTX5467

I suspect the trailer hitch would have been installed at the dealership instead of on the factory assembly line. Buick and other GM divisions had "approved" hitches available through their GM parts sources back then. I suspect it most likely would have been installed at the dealership prior to delivery to the customer if it was part of the original deal. A special order would have been different than an order for a "stock" vehicle, although some dealers did and do special order vehicles for their dealership's stock. Otherwise, something "special" might have been a "non-approved" interior color with a particular outside color combination or possibly the addition of some fleet options to the regular production options on the vehicle. Maybe even the "export" compression ratio that was mentioned recently. I believe that when a sales order is or was submitted, it had a place to notate if the vehicle's order was for a particular customer (which might receive higher priority in the production scheduling) or was for dealership stock (which might receive lower priority in the production schedule). I suspect this might also be noted on the vehicle build sheet. Just some thoughts on the order process. Not sure about the star, though. NTX5467

If you are wanting to go to the automatiac a/c controls instead of the manual controls, I suspect it might be possible as I believe the basic HVAC module under the dash is the same, but the control mechanism is not. There are temperature ambient air sensors, outside temp sensor, and maybe a sun load sensor in the upper instrument panel surface area. Check with the RegalGS.org website as your year of vehicle is right down their alley, so to speak. Those manual a/c controls might look simple, but they work pretty dang well. NTX5467

Back in the early '70s when I had plenty of time to gap the J-14Y Champion plugs on our '66 Chrysler 383 2bbl (9.2 to 1 rated compression ratio) just "so-so", when we'd check it out at the local Chrysler dealer on their Sun scope, it'd run about 8-9kv at idle with an air/fuel ratio approaching 14.0 to 1. That was with a .035" gap. If we put it in gear and loaded the engine against the brake, I don't recall the spikes going much past 15kv, but that's been a while ago. I mention that as a point of reference. In the 1960s when the first capacitive discharge aftermarket conversion kits came out, the main things the various makers talked about was "joules" of energy and the duration of the spark (in milliseconds). At that time, there was some discussion on these issues and how much difference they'd really make in an engine's performance. They used lesser voltage across the points so the points lasted longer before they'd get corroded or pitted. But, in general, there was no compelling reason, back then, to "go electronic" as the point systems worked just fine, even in the old super stock drag racers with 13.0 to 1 compression ratios. If there was "point bounce" at higher rpms, you just got a higher performance set of points with a stronger spring in them. By the time that electronic ignitions became popular on factory vehicles in the early 1970s, the compression ratios were in the 8.5 to 1 range. That might be one reason that GM's HEI system seemed to be so "ultimate" with all of its powerful capabilities when compared to what Ford and Chrysler were using, which was basically the same setup they'd used with point ignitions, but with electronic ignition distributors--meaning still about 35kv output. Still, these systems were capable of firing .045-.050" plug gaps on those motors with the lower compression ratios. Adding cylinder pressure, either via mechanical compression ratio increases, different camshaft profiles, or nitrous oxide injection does increase the power required to fire the plug in that more dense environment, but that max cylinder pressure only happens at WOT. End result, unless the resistance of the plug wires, cap/rotor combination, etc. increase markedly, the ignition system will not be straining under normal operating conditions as there's no need for it to produce max output under those conditions. I believe that it's now generally accepted that .045" gaps are the best compromise between added power from a wider gap and "wear and tear" on the igniton system. I feel that the J-gap plug modification will benefit at most any gap setting as it will expose more of the spark to the mixture, which is what the wider gaps will do anyway, and do it in an efficient manner. Interestingly, in the NGK literature I found on their V-groove ("V-Power" in the performance versions), they had a graph of the mixture vs. gap size that the plug would reliably fire. It showed a leaner mixture could be fired at .035" than at .045" gap. This might explain why most of the newer vehicles use .035" gaps again. Other than the maintenance issue, the main benefit of the electronic systems is their spark accuracy. Yet, as Smokey Yunick mentioned, the placement of the distributor at the opposite end of the camshaft as the timing chain introduces all of the torsional dynamics of the camshaft into the accuracy of the spark timing. This is why the coil-on-plug computer fired system is needed for the ultimate of spark timing on modern emission controlled vehicles. It's also why front of the engine distributor placements are better. We used to have a Sun scope, but it seems that OBDII has obsoleted that. The computer has misfire detection built in and the computer will also store the operating parameters when it happened. If misfire is suspected, there's a special tool to check the spark output of the suspect cylinder, basically a super wide gap spark plug with a holding fixture. As mentioned, the HEI conversion on a Buick V-8 of the '70s is an easy thing to do. Plus you can readily buy HEI wiresets that should not require any modifications to use on the earlier engines. If you care about the original look, then the Pertronix or similar might be the best bet. Enjoy! NTX5467

The original HEI-style ignition first appeared as an option on '72 Pontiacs. Prior to that, the top performance dog ignition from GM was the capacitive discharge system of the middle 1960s. Point ignitions worked pretty dang good back then, with coils up to about 40KV ratings. OF COURSE, the coil will only produce enough spark energy to fire the plug and no more. If it takes 10KV to do it, that's all it'll produce on each plug's firing. In other words, you don't get a 40KV zap on each firing unless it takes it to fire the plug. Most of those stock point ignitions, single point or dual point variations, would hit in the neighborhood of 30-35KV. Seemed to be enough to fire compression ratios of 11.0 to one back then . . . The hard core racers used magnetos for their drag racing applications back then, which is a whole 'nuther ball of wax. The dual points allowed for greater coil saturation before the coil fired. Supposedly better for higher rpms, but I believe that Pontiac proved that was not always the case back then--or mayabe they wanted to prove their single point systems were adequate for performance uses and saved a few bucks per vehicle. Single points typically had a dwell setting of 30-32 degrees. Dual points went about 10 degrees higher. When the GM HEI system was designed, one primary design criteria was that it would fire a .100" spark plug gap. As noted in a book I found back then, when the gap got wider than about .070", the condition of the plug wires became critical. In those middle '70s emission engines, there were many that used .060" gap for emissions purposes. They also were somewhat prone to fouling on the new car dealers' lots who moved them around every so often and didn't let them get fully warmed up, from what I read, resulting in a revised gap recommendation of .045" or so. Seems like Olds led the way with the .060" gaps back then as other GM divisions typically used .045" gaps. In later times, it was found that the output of the HEI would start dropping off above about 4500rpms. Still had more power than the point systems after that, but not by much in the higher rpms. The cure is acknowledged to be an aftermarket ignition module and maybe matching coil. One name mentioned is MSD, but others might work as well with respect to the high rpm output curve. Any electronic ignition will have increased spark stability compared to a point system. In many of the conversion kits of the early '70s, it was also noted that you could count on about 1 degree of ignition timing retard/1000 rpms when changing from a points system to an electronic system. Might be a minor point, but it was noted in the literature. If there is spark scatter, it might be due to the ozone buildup in the cap so that's why many people drilled small air holes in the base of the caps. Other than that, it could be due to uneven loadings of the oil pump and the resulting flexing of the pump drive/distributor shaft or torsional dynamics thereof. But that would typically be in the above 5000rpm range. What would be critical now, with respect to using a point ignition, would be the wear on the distributor cam (what the rubbing block of the points contacts) that determines when the points open and close. These will wear with time. Such wear can be verified with a dial indicator. The other thing I've come across is that for a period of time, the ignition point manufacturers deleted the little vial of "point rubbing block grease" from their point kits. This grease is vital for the long life of the points and decreased wear of the rubbing block on the points themselves and the distributor cam. If the grease is not replaced/added when the points are changed, point life will deteriorate greatly as the dwell and point gap will change as the block wears prematurely. This point grease is still listed in the GM Standard Parts Catalog. We used to get over 25000 miles on a set of properly setup points, back when those cars were newer. That was usually when the spark plugs needed attention too. As I mentioned, they did a very credible job back then on those engines. Now that the cars have aged since then, and people like to add things like nitrous oxide (which increased compression pressure in the combustion chamber and also increased the voltage needed to fire a plug in that environment), the spark's environment is much different on those modified applications. Factor in the fact that few good distributor cores with good distributor cams are around, plus the lack of maintenance factor, and the electronic systems make more sense. But if you've got a stock distributor that's still working well, unless there are wear issues (other than bushing, which can be possibly addressed without much problem) such that the dwell will not set correctly with the stated point gap spec, I don't see any reason to change something that's working just for the sake of changing something. One thing now working in favor of the spark capacity of the old point systems is that spark plug manufacturers are now addressing the minimum voltage that it takes to fire their plugs. Higher energy electronic ignitions have given way to systems with more precision (coil on plug, etc.) such that mega KVs are not needed to fire the plugs in a stock application. These Iridium plugs and such are reasonably new and might not be available for the more vintage applications, but usually the "fine wire electrode" plugs might be, in platinum or similar. Ease of starting was mentioned as a benefit and reason to change to electronic ignition. Only exception to that is if the battery is weak. Many electronic systems have a minimum battery voltage requirement before they'll fire the plugs--period--whereas the points would always do something if there was even just a little juice left in the battery. Might not be a significant point, but one to consider. Some of the higher performance boxes need a solid 10 volts to work, but I think the MSDs will go a little below that. Not sure about on HEIs, though. As mentioned, the HEI just takes a straight lead (no ballast resistor) to it to work. Hope this might help, NTX5467

Those rear air shocks are really air struts. Unlike the front struts, the rear ones can't be re-cartridged or such, just replaced. If the air bag on the strut is leaking or there's a leak in the air supply lines, it will make the pump run more than normal. Might also be the height sensor on the rear suspension too, or some of its linkage. Make sure that if you get any aftermarket struts, that their air line connections are compatible with the factory lines or can be easily adapted via extra adapter fittings to the new air struts. Unfortunately, not too many options except to repair the system to keep it operational. NTX5467

First, the ABS should not be applying the brakes by themselves. That's a given. I also suspect that if you read the fine print on the bottom of the repair order of the shop that did the work, you'll find a "shop warranty" that probably should be invoked, even if they are reluctant to do so. In general, if they didn't know what they were doing with that brake system or how to properly troubleshoot it, and just can't seem to fix it, then some adjustments probably need to be made by them OR let them make arrangements to send the car to someone/some other shop that knows how to do ABS brake troubleshooting/repairs as part of their shop warranty. I would hope they were using GM or ACDelco parts and not some auto supply generic brand stuff. The only time I've seen brakes apply themselves happened to be on a Buick with ABS. A quick lube facility put the wrong fluid in the brake system as part of their "top off the fluid" activity with an oil change. As the customer was driving along, the car started slowing down from freeway speed all by itself. The foreign fluid was making the rubber seals and such swell and was exerting enough fluid pressure on the brake caliper pistons to slow the car from freeway speeds to a complete stop. The brake system computer will store trouble codes just as the engine computer will. I suspect your vehicle is new enough to have that capability, but I don't know for sure. If it does, then those codes need to be found and addressed. On the surface, if the ABS pump is running and the brakes are lightly applying themselves, then the traction control portion of the computer is getting some bad wheel speed sensor information, thinking there is slight wheel spin and is applying the brake to slow the spinning wheel. It's probably the self-diagnosis portion of the computer that is turning on the lights too, I suspect. Send me an email with details of what has been replaced, please. That sounds like a lot of money for just ABS brake parts, but I might be wrong. For example, when the ABS motor runs all the time on a late model Chevy pickup and turns on the ABS light, you just put on a new ABS motor (was about $800.00 last time I sold one) and everything's fixed. I know the Riviera system has different parts, which is why I'd like to see the list of what has been replaced on the vehicle. That Mystique you're looking at might have a Mercury nameplate, but it's not a real Mercury. Seems like it's really a Mazda in drag. Mazdas aren't cheap to fix either, from our experiences. Why not one of the rear wheel drive Cougars? Thanks, NTX5467

A few months ago, I ran across a new book at Borders that was about engine casting numbers for all makes of USA vehicles. I think it went past the normal engine block numbers and also had intake and exhaust manifold numbers too. There might be some casting dates on the manifolds too. Generally, Chrysler part numbers were issused in sequence. The 7 digit number starting with the 3000000 would have indicated an initial use for the 1970 model year. 2000000 would have been for 1960. I suspect that 1-series numbers would be for 1950. Usually, there was a smooth progression so that the 2nd digit might indicate the year of that decade too, as 290000 might be for 1969, for example. Again, these would be for the first year's use of the particular part, not the actual later model vehicle it might have been installed on. Maybe this might help you get things nailed down a little closer as to year model? Hope this helps, NTX5467

TorqueFlites with a lockup torque converter appeared in about 1978 year model vehicles. Chrysler documentation indicated a 3 per cent increase in highway fuel economy with the lockup converter over a non-lockup converter. The first couple of years of lockups would lockup just after the car hit about 27mph or basically just after it would shift into direct from second. In later years, like my '80 Newport, the lockup point was delayed until more like 47mph or a little higher. The converter would unlock when any downshift out of high gear took place. Although most of the development work on the lockup TorqueFlites was done on drag race vehicles, any application which could be classed "heavy duty" in passenger car (i.e., police use or trailer package vehicles) or light trucks were non-lockup transmissions only. The passenger car overdrive TorqueFlites were based on the A904/998/999 transmissions architecture and electrically operated (the overdrive function). These transmissions didn't appear until the later '80s and in the light trucks (as those were the only rear wheel drive vehicles Chrysler built then). These were also behind the small block 318s and 360s as Chrysler was out of the big block V-8 business at that time. The last versions of the Chrysler New Yorker Fifth Avenue/Dodge Diplomat cars still used the 3-speed lockup converter TorqueFlites. To aid fuel economy, their rear axle ratios were about 2.2 to 1, or basically the same as a 3.00 rear axle with .70 overdrive applied to it. The main reason the automatic OD trans came into vogue was that it allowed for deeper rear axle ratios for better accleration but with reduced cruise rpm compared to a non-OD trans. GM's orientation was to use a 3.06 low gear ratio with a rear axle ratio that would put cruise rpm in the 1600 rpm range whereas Ford used the normal 3-speed transmission ratios with a 3.55 or so rear axle ratio. As for driving "feel" with a PowerFlite 2-speed versus a TorqueFlite 3-speed, it's all kind of relative. The PF has a low gear ratio of about 1.76 to one. This works pretty well with a middle 3.00 range rear axle ratio, but will have a full throttle upshift of about 55mph. Additionally, low speed acceleration can suffer due to the lesser amount of mechanical power multiplication and the fact that high gear at WOT happens sooner. Hence the need for the deeper rear axle ratios for acceptable performance. The engines typically were still below the 300 cubic inch size so fuel economy was still pretty good. The up side is that a PF will typically take less power to run, even with the dual pumps. This can mean a little more horsepower can make it to the rear wheels. An engine with a broad torque curve can handle a 2-speed trans pretty well in normal driving. With the TorqueFlite, which is one of the most efficient transmissions ever designed, the low gear is 2.45 to 1 with 2nd being 1.45 to 1 and 3rd being direct. The first TFs were basically behind the bigger and more powerful motors. The different gearing really made a difference in tire spinning performance and the higher ratio for 2nd let them wind out to over 75mph before hitting high gear. For a given rate of acceleration, they didn't take quite so much throttle input so the carb stayed out of the mixture enrichment phase during acceleration. As things evolved, bigger engines with greater torque with bigger cars ended up with the normal cars having 2.76 or 2.93 rear axle ratios for better high speed cruising (as on the new network of Interstate Highways) and cruise rpm would be about 2500 rpm at legal speeds. The performance 4bbl cars usually had 3.23 rear axle ratios. End result, the cars performed better and got better fuel economy in the mix too. Of course, all of the extra mechanism in the TF will take a little more power to run, but I've documented only about a 16 per cent power absorption between the flywheel and rear wheels in a late 1960s Chrysler A727 TorqueFlite equipped vehicle. When the compacts came out in 1960, there was a lighter duty version of the TorqueFlite for them. That's where the A904 was born. The larger TorqueFlite was the A727. Many drag racers soon found out that they could beef up the A904 with heavier duty clutches and bands and they could replace their A727s with them for increased performance in their small block Chrysler V-8 racers. The 904 took a little less power to run than the 727 did so it was worth a few tenths of a second in the quarter mile drags. Either way, Chrysler had some of the best automotics ever to grace this planet. They typically had higher efficiency torque converters than Ford or GM too, for that tight throttle response they were famous for. I always liked the mid-1950s Chryslers. I was a faithful watcher of the Sky King television shows that used those '55 or so Chrysler products exclusively. I recall one show where a "damsel in distress" was driving a '56 Belvedere convertible that had been rigged with dynomite. Sky King got her out of it just before the timer went off and it blew up. Good thing it was out in the desert. We had a '56 Plymouth Savoy sedan and my uncle had a '55 Belvedere sedan. Those were really neat cars! Enjoy! NTX5467

In some places, Type A fluid is still around, but in "third level" or "house" brands. Chrysler changed their fluid specs from Type A to Dexron in 1968 or so. The current Dexron III is the latest supercession from that original Dexron spec. GM shows Dexron III to be backward compatible all the way back to 1948 or so in their vehicles. I would suspect similar with the earlier Chryslers. One of the main differences I've been able to run down about the Dexron III is that it's a multi-viscosity fluid whereas the earlier Dexrons were somewhere between 10W or 20W fluids. I recall seeing an article in the later '60s which stated that Chrysler's factory fill fluids for the TorqueFlites was a multi-vis fluid, but the atf they sold for service was not. My research might indicate the current Dexron III fluid might be pretty close to that original factory fill fluid. I'll concur that the current Dexron III fluid will probably work just fine in the earlier transmissions. It's additive package will be far superior to anything in earlier times. Hope this helps, NTX5467

If you can find a Chrysler factory service manual for that vehicle, or a similar Plymouth, Dodge, or DeSoto manual, there might be some illustrations in the engine or cooling system sections which might also show the hose clamps. Might also be some archived advertising pictures in past WPC magazines which might have covered those cars too. At this point in time, those documents might be the only resource around that could have a degree of credibility, if such credibility might be questioned by a judge at a show event. Enjoy! NTX5467

Centurion, from what I have read, in the case of the particular Chrysler turbines, there was a duty that would have had to be paid on them by a certain date (like within a year?) so, when they were through with their promotional tour of dealers and potential owners, most were destroyed. I'm not sure how the few remaining ones got past that, but am glad they did. Typically, concepts and dream cars were not fully functional cars, or just marginally so. Not that many were fully functional vehicles when they were built. They might run and drive, but not reliably so in many cases--which is probably why many are limited to 35mph when the press gets to "drive" them for a story. Many of the cars that Ford recently auctioned off for charity were not fully functional cars. Their degree of functionality is highly variable, but their mission is to get us excited about them. Enjoy! NTX5467

The AC plugs with a "44" number were a pretty much middle-range heat range plug. Lots of Chevy small blocks used a 44 plug too back then and in later years. As for the gap, you could do a lot worse than staying with the orig plug gap spec. With any ignition, widening the gap will make the coil build up a little more voltage before it fires plus expose a little more of the spark to the mixture inside the combustion chamber in the process. You might experiment with the .045" gap and see if it works for your setup. If it doesn't, just set it back to a little closer gap and all that's been contributed to research is a little of your time. Going one notch colder on the plug (as from a 44 to a 43) should cause no problems if the 44s were working fine as they were. Going one notch colder can also allow a few more degrees of spark timing without "overheating" the plug, too, but more like 2-4 degrees. Always better to go colder than hotter in an engine that's fine internally. I don't know how much room is in that combustion chamber, but a "44S" plug is the same heat range as the normal 44 plug, but has an "extended tip" which puts the center electrodes a little farther into the combustion chamber. Some engines have no problems going from a regular tip to an extended tip plug, so I'll defer to those more knowledgeable on that particular motor on whether or not anyone has tried this on those particular engines and have lived to tell about it. Back to the "labor operation" situation, you can "J-Gap" your regular plugs with a little time and simple tools. The "J-Gap" style gap was used by Champion on some of their racing plugs in the 1960s. What it amounts to is snipping and filing the end square on the ground electrode of the plug and then regapping it to specs. End result, the gound electrode is cut back to where it only covers 1/2 of the center electrode when it's all said and done. This exposes more of the spark kernel to the mixture and promotes a better burn. AC Rapidfires are this was as are NGK V-Power plugs. J-gap modifications would not work on platinum or "fine wire electrode" plugs, but will work on the regular electrode plugs. I believe there is a competitive cross reference and probably a parts lookup section on the ACDelco website. One trend of modern spark plug design is to decrease the voltage requirement of the plug so that a good solid reliable spark is produced without having to have a super power ignition system. Similarly, with a given coil, it could also allow the gap to be widened further. There are many spark plug manufacturer websites that have information on their products so there's lots of stuff to look at out there. Probably some cross refs among the various brands for particular applications too. Just some thoughts . . . NTX5467

I perceive there are some concerns about the "correct" block so, do these concerns also include having one with an appropriate date code or is there some significant difference in the block you have and what the production block was? For example, would the original block casting have been the same as the Stage1 casting, but with some different machining operations that would have generated a different block ID number for the Stage1 block than for the block from a regular Electra or similar? As for the date code casting, and you might have to adapt what I'm going to mention regarding Chevrolets to what Buick did back then (which Roberta might add something to also), the date code for the block on a '70s Chevy V-8 is on the rear mounting flange for the transmission, just below where the distributor is on a pretty much horizontal surface. From the ones I've seen, the whole deal is about 3/8" long and 1/4" high, with a little casting flash around the perimeter edge. The format is: Letter (starting with A=January), two numbers (the day of the month the block was cast), and another single number (the last number of the year it was cast). For example, January 15, 1972 would be A152. Similarly, January 15, 1962 and January 15, 1982 would be the same, but most engines didn't use the same castings for that long of a time without some changes that would specify the decade years significantly. The reason I mention the "machining labor operation" issue is that many times, the same block casting or head casting was used for the regular performanc engines as for the high performance engines--except that the high perf applications had some different things done to the base casting the regular engines didn't. Key example would be some of the small block Chevy cylinder heads that were one particular casting number for the normal 4bbl motors. When those same heads were upgraded to LT-1 Corvette status, these same castings got different valve sizes, screw in studs and guideplates, PLUS a radius cut to unshroud the larger intake valves. Similarly, a 4.00" bore small block casting could just as easily be a 302 Z-28 motor as a 327 or 350 V-8 (depending on the year). When that famous Z-28 spec ID stamping was removed from the front of the Z-28 block when the block was decked during a blueprint or rebuild operation, it suddenly became just "another" Chevy V-8 block that just happened to use a 4.00" bore size. It was what went into the block that made it what it was, which was reflected in the block designation stampings. Of course, the date code would put a time frame for when the block was cast, so that might help a little in verifying what it was. In some cases, the casting date of the block could precede the actual machining of the block by 6 months or more. But I suspect it would not predate the actual machining for a production vehicle by less than a few weeks or so, but the engine people might able to nail those things down better as this could be a somewhat varialbe situation. I suspect that some of what I've mentioned might crossover from Chevy to Buick or the other GM divisions, but I don't know just how much of it might. I'll leave those determinations to Roberta and her contacts up there. I did run across a book several months ago that had casting numbers of most every V-8 engine built in the USA since the early 1950s until about the 1980s. Seems like it had block casting numbers plus head and intake numbers too laid out in a year by year format. Looked like one heck of a resource for engine stuff! Hope this helps, NTX5467

The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), I believe, has stated procedures for how these tests were run. In the "gross horsepower" days, it was a bare engine with probably only a water pump, "shop" exhaust hooked to the production exhaust manifolds, AND a carb air inlet temperature regulated to something like 60 degree F. In some cases, these figures were inflated for marketing purposes. There were some engine brands that put out more of their "rated" horsepower than others. Those were very competitive times so everyone had to be in pretty much the "benchmark" ballgame for how much power a certain size motor would produce. When the "Net" ratings were phased in, the engines were supposed to be pretty much just like they would be installed in the car, plus the applicable vehicle's exhaust system. That would include the alternator and other typical belt driven items too. One main difference was that carb air inlet temperature was now 100 degrees F. (as that was what temp the carburetor calibrations were not designed around with the "hot air" air cleaners). Just like happened when the compression ratios dropped for unleaded fuel, some engines dropped more than did others. For a few years, many manufacturers put "gross/net" power figures in their sales brochures. Seeking out one of them with ratings for an engine similar to yours might be the only reliable way to project what your vehicle's engine might produce on the "net" side of things. Hope this helps, NTX5467

I just went back into the website to find those pictures and such. Seems they've rearranged things from what they were before the Centennial. Seems like there's a name plate on the front of the quarter panel, above the side molding. This is why I wanted to find the picture again, to verify that. Otherwise, I suspect it would be circa '55 or so as the body seems to be a stretched version of what became the '57s. I seem to recall that many of the concept/show/dream vehicles were destroyed for tax reasons. I know that was the fate of most of the Chrysler turbine cars so they wouldn't have to pay duty taxes on the imported bodies. Probably something similar with the domestic ones too? NTX5467

As Roberta mentioned, these cars are pretty dang trouble free. The only water that "should" be in the a/c case would be from condensate from the a/c condenser. The motor has a rubber cooling tube/duct that also goes to another part of the a/c case for cooling purposes. If, perchance, the water drain was plugged up (which they can be for various reasons), that would not let the normal condensate drain out. I would think that before it got high enough in the case to get to the guts of the motor, it would make "watery" noises that would raise a concern. Otherwise, the only other source of water would be the cowl area air intake. I suspect there should be some drains in there too, which along with some baffling in there, have the expressed purpose of letting rain water drain out before it can get to the air intake for the hvac system. If the vehicle has the replaceable cabin air filters, if water goes through them, they should be wet. This would be a good place to trouble shoot the suspected place of entry for the moisture. In all of the ABS equipped vehicles I've seen come through the dealership, I've never heard of the wheel speed sensors "coming out" of the hub. If they (the sensors and related wiring) are secured properly to the suspension pieces, there should be NO force on them at all. Plus, if they are made with the hub, they're secured in there with adhesive (I suspect) that would keep them nailed down tight enough to not let the clearance spec between the sensor and the tone wheel change. I have seen instances where the wires might chafe, some foreign object might contact and damage them, or the connectors might become degraded for some reason, but not "coming out". Similarly, that composite radiator is an extremely troublefree unit also. GM has been using them since about '82 and those composite tanks don't cause problems, but they might be more prone to impact damage than a brass radiator. Unfortunately, the things you mentioned are things I've just not seen happen very much. Others might have other observations. As for the ABS brake systems, some of the ABS modules and such do wear out with time. They are not inexpensive either, unfortunately, but in many instances they are pretty troublefree too. Someone mentioned a while back that flushing the brake system on an ABS vehicle every couple of years would prolong the life of the valves and pressure modulation hardware. This makes sense as it's usually moisture in the brake fluid that starts the degrading process. As noted, these are some unusual problems. Therefore, it might take a little more in-depth troubleshooting to find out what is causing them. Something more than just replacing parts and saying "It's fixed" when the root cause of the repeated failures would also need to be addressed too. Hopefully, when everything's put back "right", then everything will be OK. NTX5467

There was a solid engineering reason for the rh and lh studs on the early Chrysler products, but it turned out it was not the issue it would have been suspected of being. Along about 1970, Chrysler changed to what everyone else was doing back then. I wasn't aware of the ring gear bolts, though. NTX5467