NTX5467

Danny, if you'll email me the VIN and option codes on the Service Parts ID Label, I'll decode it and see if it shows any option package/group to help determine just what it is you have. There might also be something in there to substantiate your accumulated knowledge of the vehicle. I do not recall ever seeing anything in the GM Parts database regarding any special edition LeSabre other than the T-type or LeSabre Limited. As I recall, the basic T-type would have had blacked out bright trim around the windshield, back glass, and other similar places. It would have had aluminum wheels and Eagle GT tires as producton equipment, plus probably the upgrade suspension (over the stock FE1) calibration. No engine options other than the regular 3.8L V-6. No different transaxle ratios, other than what might have been optional already. If Buick was allegedly aware of that model, then it could well have been something done by a particular dealer group to help put some life into their sales. It's not uncommon for regional dealer groups to go in and order a big enough quanitity of vehicles in order to justify the use of special colors (typically "fleet" colors) or special paint two-tone combinations. This could well have been what happened, but there should be some documentation somewhere. Perhaps it was done as a companion model to the Regal Gran Sports on the dealers' lots? Many times, aftermarket companies will come out with various trim kits and sell them to dealers for installation on existing vehicles. This "kit" then usually becomes a sales draw and "cash cow" for that particular vehicle as no other dealer typically has one like that. Kind of like the add-on carriage tops and such. While we like to trust the owner's recollections in order to document these special editions, that might not be the most reliable, with all due respect, way to do it. If the owner can furnish documents themselves for the special nature of the vehicle, instead of going just by what some salesperson might have told them at the time they bought the car, then that is much better. Otherwise, tracking the vehicle will have to be done by other reliable means. Please let us know what your Buick contacts/links turn up. For example, in the early '80s a friend found a GMC "ElCamino" vehicle on a used car lot in Fort Worth. It was black and had gold pin stripes and a shaker hood scoop (non-functional) added to it. It looked like a GMC version of the similar 2nd generation Firebird TransAms that Burt Reynolds drove in the "Smokey and the Bandit" movies. It was very well done and looked "factory" in all details and aspects. The GM parts books had no information of anything of that sort ever leaving the factory. The used car dealer he bought it from said he bought it from an auction in Oklahoma City. Obviously, someone set up shop and did a run of those vehicles or something. In this situation, we'll have to approach your vehicle with a certain amount of skepticism until the appropriate documentation of the vehicle's earlier life is produced or duplicated. I look forward to seeing what turns up on this vehicle. Enjoy! NTX5467

The conversion on the '62 LeSabre was done by Phoenix Transmission in Weatherford, Texas. Not much modifications as such were needed, but there were some brackets and other linkage items that were procurred from a local salvage yard. I know that it made a huge difference in the way the car performed. Enough so that he had to hide the keys from his teenage son. Enjoy! NTX5467

Unfortunately, the 1988 model year was the new truck unless it was a Suburban type vehicle which used the '87 chassis until the new in '92 Suburban came out. The new for 1988 C/K truck came out way earlier than the traditionial fall introduction. The chassis that was previously the "C/K" chassis prior to '87 model year was now the "R/V" chassis as the new design pickup was the new "C/K" truck. These differences are reflected in the VIN number. The earlier body truck, that dates back to the '73 year model, had door handles with pushbuttons. The new for '88 model year truck had door handles that you pulled up on to open the door. The current body style Silverado had door handles that you grab and pull toward you to open the door. Enjoy! NTX5467

I highly suspect all of the '96 Roadmasters had "Collector Edition" nameplates, just as all of the '85 rear wheel drive LeSabres did. Enjoy! NTX5467

Steve, the only place I have heard of that is doing any kind of adaptation of a front wheel drive engine into a rear wheel drive chassis is Cadillac Hot Rod Fabricators, who have a kit to put the front wheel drive NorthStar V-8 into street rod applications. www.chrfab.com There was an article on them a few months back in the Hemmings Rod magazine, as part of their Alternative Engines series on the NorthStar V-8. Seems they have the mounting interfaces all figured out, with the major issue being the water pump placement and related plumbing. Of course, when the Cadillac XLR roadster (which has a new block designed for rear wheel drive) gets into circulation, that will ease the plumbing issues. The transmission they use for those NorthStar rear wheel drive conversions is something like a middle '80s vintage automatic for a 2.8L V-6 S-10 pickup, but with all of the guts strengthened. That particular article details that stuff, as their website probably does too. One of the neat things about the later 3800s is their intake and fuel injection system. In the Cadillac conversions, they have a 4bbl intake that replaces the production injection and is an "instant" 100 horsepower on top of the factory 300. I'm not sure what they use to run the ignition, but they obviously have that base covered too. In order to keep most of the production 3800 intact to ease the conversion, it would be necessary to determine how to interface the new transmission electronics and such into the new transmission electronics. I suspect the 4L60E would be good for that aspect as most if not all of the electronic inputs for the PCM should be similar. Of course, it might be better to find an aftermarket intake from an earlier 3.8L V-6 that would replace the current production intake manifold setup and put on one of the Holley stand-alone fuel injection kits. There were QuadraJet intakes for the fwd Century models and also for the middle '80s full size Cadillacs that used the 4.1L Buick V-6. The key thing here would be if the earlier intake will bolt up to the current cylinder heads. Rather than use the front wheel drive block, it might be better to consider using one of those earlier Cadillac applications or the Buick GN applications as that would solve all of the mounting problems in one feld swoop. It would also allow for an HEI ignition too, plus generate the 4bbl intake. Only thing is it would not be a balance shaft engine. Electromotive or Rance Fuel Injection could probably do a direct fire ignition adaptation and custom designed port injection setup, respectively. Some might desire to just go with the GN turbo setup and all of its related electronics. Only real difference would be the turbo instead of the supercharger. OR, here's a better idea, the last generation Camaro used the 3800 that mirrors the non-supercharged 3800. Using that engine as a base to build upon would only require the aftermarket supercharger kit (and related computer recalibrations) to go from 200 horsepower to about 300 horsepower. If you desire to use all of the current production electronics, that Camaro/Firebird application would have everything you would need--engine, electronics, transmission. You might check out GMHighTechPerformance magazine for vendors and such for performance upgrades for that late model 3800 Camaro/Firebird application. I believe there are also some of the F-body websites that have areas devoted to mods on the 3800 engined Camaros/Firebirds too. There are several options to do what you desire, but not all specifically for adapting the front wheel drive block to a rear wheel drive chassis. Obviously, starting with a rear wheel drive block would be preferable. Whether you started with the middle '80s Cadillac block/THM200R4 and built up a street rod type application or started with the latest Camaro powertrain and built something totally environmentally friendly (check your local emissions rule first!), that would really get on down the road, would be up to you. Just some thoughts . . . NTX5467

As for the 3.8L/4.1L V-6, I was getting the fwd Century confused with the fwd Skylark. The Century did use the Buick V-6s whereas the Skylark used the Chevy 2.8L V-6. There were two 2.8L V-6s, though. The 2.8X (opt code LE2) was the regular 2.8L V-6. The 2.8Z (opt code LH7) was classified "2.8L HO". It appears it was the same motor that came in the sportier Citation X11 coupe. It had a different camshaft than the regular 2.8 and probably about 10 or so more horsepower. It also had a dual outlet muffler whereas the normal 2.8 has a single outlet muffler. Just wanted to add this additional information after I went back into the GM Parts database to look it up. Enjoy! NTX5467

Since we've been selling Buicks, I can recall only one supercharger that we needed to estimate the replacement of for a customer, and that was about a month or so ago. Not to imply that others might have had different experiences. The only thing that bothers me is the "sealed for life" nature, which the first year of superchargers had. The second year of production brought us an oil port to change the supercharger oil every 50K miles (how many people really do that little bit of maint.???) and even a GM part number for the small bottle of oil. I would concur that it ought to last longer than 150K miles, but that could well be "proving grounds miles" which are much more intense than normal useage. I'll do some part number checks to see what is actually different other than just the electronic throttle actuation. NTX5467

From the way it looks in my '68 Buick Service Manual, the parking linkage and such should be accessible with the transmission oil pan and maybe the trans filter removed. I suspect your '64 transmission would be similar. There are several parts to the internal park linkage, so I would hope it would be an adjustment issue with the main shift linkage instead of a parts failure issue. Maybe one of the little spring clips failed or something easy? You can disconnect the linkage at the trans and operate it manually to see if there's any change. It appears that the pawl engages a toothed ring on one of the clutch housings that is attached to the output shaft. Might even be a wear issue where the pawl and toothed ring interface? Probably just need to drop the pan, change the fluid and filter, and do some investigating. Enjoy! NTX5467

Check out "The Standard Catalog of Buick" next time you're close to a Borders or Barnes&Noble. It will detail what's standard and what was optional on that vehicle. Don't recall any performance versions of the Chevy 2.8L V-6 back then (except the X11 Cavalier with a different carburetor and exhaust), but there were a 3.8L Buick V-6 and maybe a larger 4.2L Buick V-6 with a QuadraJet on it somewhere in the mix. The reason those cars had a longer front end sheet metal than the similar Chevies and such was to accomodate the greater width of the Buick 90 degree V-6 over the narrower 2.8L Chevy 60 degree V-6. As for the "frump" factor, the half vinyl roof and wire wheel covers (hopefully GM covers) do "date" the car to an earlier era, but getting the vinyl roof made into a full vinyl roof and maybe some different wheels might update the looks some. Should definitely be a nice drive to work car to settle back into after a full day at work for the drive home. Enjoy! NTX5467

2004 Grand Prixs are all Series III 3800s and have electronic throttle actuation, which is speed sensitive. At low vehicle speeds, the input must be greater than before for a given action, but once past a certain point, it gets in to the "geddy-up-and-haul" mode. Even with the traction control on, the GTP Comp G 2004 Grand Prixs we drove will spin for close to a car length before the BFG KDAs get hooked up. The EPA figures for the 2004 Grand Prix are up by 1 mpg too, reputedly due to the electronic throttle actuation. Supercharged Series III 3800s also have the higher efficiency supercharger (Gen 5) that is "lubed for life" and has a published life expectancy of 150,000 miles. This is from the Pontiac Performance Tour 2004 Grand Prix Ride & Drive Participant Guide. Impala SS and Supercharged Monte Carlo will have Series II 3800s, according to sales literature I picked up at the Dallas New Car Show. Same power and torque figures of the existing Series II supercharged motors too. Not sure what other differences there are in the Series III motors at this time. NTX5467

When talking about the effectiveness of any filter, you also need to be aware of the "down to ____ microns" size of the particles they'll trap. For example, the AC-Delco oil filters were always good filters, but the Duraguard upgrades in the '90s started talking about particle sizing that they'd filter down to. It was something like a 50% improvement over the earlier filters we'd used for years. GM has used several different protocols on air filters since the later '60s. There was the basic paper element (usually had some "oil wetting" in many cases), the basic paper element with an oil wetted foam wrap, and the "dry" versions. Unfortunately, when the oil wetted paper elements stayed on the shelves too long, the oil soaked into the cardboard package, which was sometimes worse with the foam wrapped versions. Seems like I recall them putting the foam wrapping in a plastic bag that kept the oil migration to a minimum. Not all applications used the oil wetted paper elements, though. I don't recall any other filter manufacturer using oil wetted paper elements so it might have been a helper to catch more of the dirt in the intake air. I suspected the foam wrap was to be sort of a pre-filter for certain applications, but was not limited to any heavy duty applications. It could be cleaned and reused so I guess it was a "value added" issue so the basic paper element would last longer or perhaps it was a stop gap measure to increase filtration efficiency. For those heavier duty industrial applications, no doubt the oil bath backed up with a good paper element would be better for total filtration down to a smaller micron size particle than just the oil bath would catch itself. I did use one of the Fram paper "dual filters" on my '77 Camaro once. Even with the 305 2bbl, I noticed it did not run as good as the standard A329C filter. Somewhere, there's a good compromise between filter restriction, sizing, and filtering abilities. Enjoy! NTX5467

I found this link from the ROA (Riviera Owners Association) as a restoration link, there are some good visuals of Nailhead Buick engines (i.e., 401, 425) plus lots of interesting historical pictures of the cars these engines were put into or came in from the factory. As is evident, the Buick Nailhead was an integral part of the '60s and prior hot rod scene. Hopefully, you can see something there that can be of help. One thing specific to the Buick Nailhead series of V-8s is the way the valve covers are oriented plus the way the intake manifold interfaces with the cylinder heads. www.buicknailhead.com Enjoy! NTX5467

From my experience, when the A-6 compressors have some "miles" on them and start making a rattling noise when they are running, it could just be that it needs a full charge of R-12 and nothing more. I agree that if it was a bearing, it would be constant as the bearing is pressed into the pulley that runs at belt speed, unless it's one of the bearings on the compressor's "guts". Much easier to replace the compressor with a quality reman unit (cost wise) than to repair what you have, unless there's a decal or other "something" specific to your vehicle that you would desire to keep for originality concerns. You can buy the reman compressor for less than putting the bearing/clutch assembly on an existing compressor. Your judgment call on that one. If you take the orifice tube out for inspection and find it full of metal, you'll need to get the shop to get any residual metal out of the system by flushing or replacement and/or installing an in-line filter in the system that can be changed when it gets clogged up. Such a filter would alter the originality of the situation, but is a GM recommended situation when a compressor "trashes". As mentioned, if you have to start replacing the compressor, it would be a good idea to consider changing over to R134A from R12. Not to mention changing the accumulator/receiver/drier at the same time. R134A takes about 20% less gas than R12 does. There's also a "variable orifice tube", that you can buy from NAPA and others, that helps with the R134A situation as it seems to act like the old "suction throttling valve" in the non-orifice tube systems. Investigate what your options are, but if all it needs is a pound or two of R12, that might be the least expensive option. Enjoy! NTX5467

I did quite a bit of searching last night and today on automatic transmission fluids. I first put in "dexron transmission fluid spec" into Google and got lots of sales literature information, until I got past the 15th page and then some references to specifications came out. Today, I put "type a transmission fluid" in and tried that deal. It read "a" as a word and deleted it so I ended up with lots of sales stuff until I got down to the 15th or so page. From what I found, the Chrysler 7176 spec fluid is a little more slipperier than the Dexron spec, but is similar enough to Dexron that they are compatible. In an Amsoil site, it listed that Dexron II was 5W-20 viscosity and the Dexron III was 0W-20 viscosity. Each upgrade of Dexron seems to have a little more better additive package to keep things clean and working well and help the transmission last longer. I also found a lubricant site that still listed Type A transmission fluid, along with other hydraulic fluids. by the way, what I previously called "Dexron IIa" should have been "Dexron IIE", which coincided with the upgraded Dexron II spec for the electronic controlled transmissions, later evolving into Dexron III. One thing that we many times run across when dealing with more vintage vehicles is that the spec fluids for the vehicle when it was produced are no longer available as such, only their newer versions. Motor oil is a fine example of this. Even the most premium multigrade of the later '60s would not meet the current standards of the automakers, yet we usually don't have any problem using the current oils in the earlier engines. In fact, it's probably better for them anyway, not to mention the wide availability of blended synthetic or straight synthetic engine oils. Type A atf was listed as "non friction modified" whereas the Dexron and other modern fluids were listed as "friction modified". I suspect that "friction modified" refers to the frictional lockup characteristics of the fluid and how it interacts with the transmission friction plates or bands during the "apply" mode of the individual clutch pack or band. In one respect the multi-viscosity atf would be better just as multi-viscosity motor oil can benefit engines. I don't see where the friction characteristics might be that important in a DynaFlow as once the particular clutch pack/band is applied to make the vehicle go forward or backward, all of the driving force comes through the converters and such (correct me if I'm wrong on this one). The multi-viscosity might be a plus in colder climates and something of a moot point in other places. I also discovered that there's still a lot of what appears to be misinformation out there on transmission fluid issues, especially when those asking the questions are much younger than the transmissions. Many transmission techs seem to have lots of "tricks" that have seemed to work for them too, just like the little enhancements they do when they rebuild a particular transmission. Can't really discount their orientations and information as it's worked for them. There are lots of compelling reasons to use the later Dexron fluids in place of the earlier and pretty much disappeared/discontinued Type A spec atf. One major consideration is to use fluids that are readily available and probably better than what the original fluid spec was. Of course, if you want to take the trouble to find and procure Type A fluid, it's your money. In those earlier times also, it was common to use atf in power steering units of GM and others. In the '60s, a separate power steering fluid surfaced that everyone seemed to start using. Much of that has to do with seal compatibility in the steering system. In these later vehicles, if the system is full of atf (due to a leak, after being repeatedly topped-off with atf instead of the correct power steering fluid), then flushing the system and refilling it with genuine GM power steering fluid has been known to stop the seeps and leaks (from my own experience). The newer power steering fluid would have a particular additive package that would better suit the power steering units than atf, I suspect. In one respect, it's all "hydraulic" oil, but there are many differences with respect to the perils of the different operational environments--whether it be particular base stocks, additive packages, and/or viscosities. Hope this helps . . . NTX5467

If it's got enough good parts to sell, why not just repair and reassemble it and have it for yourself? It might be more to clean up now than when it was taken apart, not to mention easier to clean up the engine compartment, but repairability doesn't diminish with age, typically. Just some thoughts . . . NTX5467

That's interesting, Mrbuick714! Per chance, when they formulated the Dexron fluid spec, did they also upgrade the temperature tolerance or just enhance the detergent additive package? Just curious. Thanks in advance, NTX5467

I suspect the confusion has to do with the "400" on the side of the car by the "LeSabre" nameplate. I suspect that if you look at the shift quadrant, you'll see that it has a 3-speed automatic transmission, hence the "400" logo as it has the optional Turbo Hydramatic 400 transmission in it (probably a Switch Pitch version too!). Most other car companies back then put the displacement of the engine on the side of the car, but Buick put the optional upgrade transmission "size" on the side of the car. I suspect that cosmetics of the engine would verify which one it is. Trying to judge "big" engines against "small" engines by just looking can get you in trouble if you don't know what you're looking at. If the car is as well-cared for as the low mileage might suggest, there should be an owner's manual with the Protect-O-Plate in the back of it. If it's like the similar Chevrolets, you can decode the codes on that plate for the engine size. Similarly, getting the carburetor number or distributor number and checking them against a Buick parts book would verify the engine size for sure (as those parts were specific to a particular engine size, transmission useage, and year model). If you can find a '66 Buick Chassis Service Manual, it'll also tell you how to verify the engine by the stamp/cast codes on the block and such too. It'll probalby have some good illustrations and pictures of the various engines in it too. Enjoy! NTX5467

Bill, you might also check for the formulations of the Chrysler 7176+ atf in addition to Type F. Our Pennzoil rep once said, when we were discussing atf several years ago, that Chrysler's (then) 7176+ spec fluid was basically the same fluid they'd been using since the '60s, although Chrysler evolved into the Dexron fluids for their regular rear wheel drive TorqueFlites in '68 or so. Chrysler and Ford both have specific fluids for their front wheel drive transaxles that must be used or their durability will suffer greatly with something else in them. Usually, there are still some Type A atf brands at the auto supplies and such, but are usually "low line" brands. That might be a decent alternative provided the additive packages are reasonably good. Dexron II was basically the original Dexron but had corrosion inhibitors in it so the trans cooler in the radiator tank would not deteriorate. Dexron IIa was an intermediate upgrade for a few years in the middle '80s or so, prior to the final and current Dexron III fluid which came online with the elecrtronic controlled transmissions with the elecrtric solenoids that took the place of the spring loaded shuttle valves in the valve body (where the springs resisted fluid pressure prior to moving and changing the fluid flow within the valve body as a result). From my experience with my '77 Camaro THM 350, the Dexron IIa and III fluids led to a little bit quicker shift than the previous Dexron II did. Not much, but if you were keyed into it, it was there. Adding the GM Automatic Transmission Conditioner to the Dexron II fluid also seemed to quicken the shift some, even though it's main purpose is a detergent additive with some seal conditioner too. There was an excellent article on the difference in Dexron and Type F atf in "Car Life" magazine along about 1968. The main difference mentioned was the manner in which the frictions "locked-up" with the metal plates or drum. Dexron had a little more initial slip upon initial apply pressure, but this was only during the initial apply phase. Type F had a more aggressive initial lock-up phase that resulted in the quicker and firmer shifts in transmissions that were not designed to use it (i.e., non-Ford built). Therefore, in a GM or Chrysler transmission, the Type F caused a quicker "grab" than the Type A or Dexron fluids did. This is why the high performance enthusiasts usually changed their Dexron fluid to Type F. There was mention that the B&M Trick Shift fluid was built around a Type F specification, but that was not concretely confirmed, due to the way it acted in the non-Ford transmissions. In the '80s, Ford started evolving into using Dexron fluids instead of their Type F spec fluids. Now, their Mercon is basically the same as Dexron III, at least enough so that most companies build a Dexron III/Mercon fluid. Could it be that Ford's new Mercon still has an additive package that's more like the older Type F? That "Car Life" article made no mention of any differences in the additive packages with respect to anti-wear characteristics. The late '60s was also the time frame that saw many metallic washers, bushings, and such be replaced with plastic materials in their place. That change might have resulted in the zinc and such not being really as necessary? I noticed on the Castrol Australia website that they have many different lubricants down there than we have up here. Seemingly less emphasis on synthetics from what I noticed. Perhaps there's a more Type A oriented fluid that's still available in another country that would be more inline with the original fluids for the DynaFlows? Many of the high performance automatic transmission companies usually have their own line of fluids to complement their transmissions. I suspect there are more anti-wear additives in those fluids due to their intended use in transmissions that see much higher loads than regular street driving would present. There could be some possibilities there just as with fully synthetic atf (provided the synthetic atf would be compatible with the rubber seals and such). Just some thoughts . . . NTX5467

Could the "gunk" in the coolant reservoir be the remnants of the GM Cooling System Seal Tabs that might have been put in there on the assembly line? I have a '70 Camaro build manual that specifies that two of the tabs should be put into the radiator via the radiator neck (on that car) as it goes down the final assembly phases. Possibly Buicks were done similarly? My '77 Camaro 305 (bought new) never would keep the reservoir full for some reason. No obvious leaks or anything else. I quit worrying about it and just checked the reservoir every so often. I guess it was evaporating? It had the fresh remnants of the cooling system tabs in the reservoir also. If you have a local garage that has an emissions gas tester, you can use the probe above the radiator neck to ckeck the vapors coming out of the radiator--just make sure no liquid gets inside the probe as things come to a quick stop when that happens. You will be looking for hydrocarbons. There is also a Block Check aparatus that you place against the open filler neck and let the vapors come up through the liquid in a cylinder. If hydrocarbons are present, then it turns the blue liquid yellow. Hydrocarbons in the cooling system are the result of a cracked head(s) or compromised/degraded head gasket sealing capabilities, typically. Your cooling system loss of coolant might be checked with a common cooling system pressure test, maybe doing one when the engine is cold and another when the engine is at operating temperature. Of course, if the pressure builds past the pressurized point with the engine running in either case, it's probably building up from combustion gasses getting in from somewhere (allowing for the normal fluid expansion and related pressure build-up as the engine heats up). Also, if you flush the system and temporarily put a weak antifreeze solution back in and the coolant level does not decrease, there might be a seep somewhere. If you put the full 50-50 coolant mix back in and the level drops quicker, there most probably will be a seep somewhere as the antifreeze solution will leak out of places regular water will not. MIght also be a seep that evaporates when the engine gets fully warmed up too. Most antifreezes have some phosporescent properties so a black light might come in handy. Several different possibilities. Try the cheapest and easiest things to diagnose first and hopefully it'll be one of them. Might be easier to just keep an eye on the coolant level for a while too and replenish it with the proper mix of coolant--until you locate the seep/leak and get it fixed. Just some thoughts . . . NTX5467

That two-speed automatic probably is the Dual-Path Dynaflow, which was a Buick-only creation. I don't recall those cars having terribly low (high, numerically) rear axle ratios. I suspect it should be somewhere in the 3.3 or so range, maybe even closer to 3.0. With the small tires and wheels, compared to something with larger tire sizes and such, it could make it more like a 3.73 comparatively speaking, but I still suspect it would run somewhere in the mid-2000 or so rpm range at normal 65mph cruising speeds. If my suspicions are correct in the case of the cruise rpm level, then there should be no problems with any kind of long trip. Those compacts from GM back then all had 2-speed automatics in them anyway. None were "low speed" vehicles either, being limited more by engine power than rpm, typically. Putting a three-speed automatic in there would solve nothing, but would let you have a lower low gear for better starting and low speed performance. You'd still have the same rear axle to contend with so cruise situations would not change. Only the newer overdrive automatics would lower the cruise rpm, BUT adding the .70 overdrive gear ratio on top of the 3.3 range (if that's the case) rear axle ratio would lower the engine rpm too much and make the car "gutless" until it downshifted out of overdrive--probably not helping fuel economy in the process either, only making it worse and less fun to drive. Plus, such a swap would mean lots of fabrication and engineering, maybe even some floorpan modifications to clear the larger transmission too. So, see what your highway cruise rpm is first. Could be you're hearing noise from the engine fan or similar instead of a tightly wound engine--unless you're trying to cruise at 90+ mph. Might be something under the hood that is picking up a resonance that might go away if, for example, and engine bracket if fully torqued down. Maybe even exhaust noise? Then, you can verify what the rear axle ratio is too. With those two pieces of information, you can determine "what's next" and "how much will it cost to change it". Also verify that the automatic is operating correctly. It was a unique design due to the "dual paths" the torque would take through the transmission depending on the operational mode it was in. Might be something that is not "up to snuff" in there? If there was an optional 14" tire/wheel combination for those cars, that would be a better choice to change and probably be much more cost effective too. You'd need to get the speedometer calibration altered to reflect accurate speed/distance with tne new combination, though. The larger diameter 14" tire combination would effectively change the rear axle gear ratio to a lower number for less rpm on the highway. Might not be much change, though, depending on how things compare. In that case, you'd still probably desire to maintain a stock look so it would still need to be whitewalls and such and not something white lettered and waaayyyy tooooo wide. Just some quality normal whitewall radials would probably be fine, or some repros . . . just depends on how you want it to look. Just some thoughts . . . NTX5467

WOW! That's one fantastic website! Thanks for passing that information along! There are many Buicks that are in the some of the collections that aren't in the Buick section per se. Plus, some of the sections are more than one page long. With that and the www.fitz-art.com site, there's a huge amount of GM artwork that can be had. Thanks, NTX5467

From experience, there are many different shades of the GM "Corporate Blue" engine color. Even some of the name brands are not right (the Krylon version seems almost as dark as Ford Blue). You could do a lot worse that get your local GM dealer to order you some of the genuine stuff. The GM Gloss Black (really satiny black) Engine Enamel (12345322) will match the air cleaner and other non-engine color black items under the hood. The black on the chassis and other body parts is GM Reconditioning Black, which does not have a "hard" shine to it, kind of like the black prime that all of the GM sheet metal came in back then. Spray cans and also gallon cans are available. These items and other engine colors will be found in the GM Standard Parts Catalog in the GM Parts database, in what used to be the "front" of the catalog with other specialized lubricants and chemical items. GM Restoration Parts used to have a comprehensive list of paints and such from a private vendor, but sold under their name. I have no experience with them as such, but these paints are also available from other restoration vendor sources too. Of course, as Scott mentioned, you could take a valve cover (as an example of an engine part that did not see that much heat that might discolor the paint) and get it matched. Several options on the paint situation. As for the tires, as mentioned the warranty materials should indicate what brand of tire came on the car. That tire is not available any more as they were upgraded/changed on pretty much a yearly basis back then. You could do worse that to get some Uniroyal Tiger Paw AWP whitewalls(or similar) for it in the correct size (P215/75R-15 M+S?). If it was Goodyear or Firestone or General, I'm not sure what their later equivalents might be. The battery would be the Delco side-post battery that is still being used. The graphics on the labeling and such have changed several times since the car was new, but the case cosmetics should be close enough to not worry about. I suspect the sizing would be the current 75-6YR or 78-6YR sizes. In any event, the newer versions have more CCAs than the original did. There are 5YR versions of those sizes, but the price difference is not significant enough to downsize to that level, from my observations. Although I have not judged at a BCA event, when I walk up to a car and see OEM level and manufacturer items under the hood (i.e., battery, battery cables, oil filter, spark plug wires, other items which have been replaced as a part of normal maintenance situations) which are the later model versions of the originals and not specifically repro items, that tells me that the owner cared enough to go the extra mile and not get the less expensive "auto supply" parts on the vehicle AND that the vehicle is prepared to drive on the streets instead of being trailered. That, plus excellent and correct detailing under the hood makes me smile! Hope this might help . . . but it's your money. NTX5467

Stalling at idle can be due to low fuel pressure, either from a getting-ready-to-fail fuel pump, a clogged fuel filter, or combination thereof. Usually, when it's a fuel-related issue, it will be consistent--especially the extended crank time. Get a pressure test run on the fuel system. Start with checking the pressure and how it acts during cranking. Then see where it is once it's running. On port injected engines, unless there's a minimum amount of fuel pressure, it'll crank and not run no matter what. Could also be a weak alternator or even corroded battery terminals. I've seen gunked up battery cables take 10 amps off of the alternator's output just by themselves. One indicator of a low voltage issue would be if the warning lights on the instrument cluster start acting strange or blinking in sequence just before the car dies. The a/c control might also be unresponsive. It appears that GM's engine management systems and such will operate down to about 5 volts before the engine stops running. 5 volts is basically a dead battery. Otherwise, check the IAC motor on the throttle body and also the throttle body for deposits around the throttle blade itself. 3M, Berrymans, and others make a spray throttle body cleaner and others have mentioned using Berryman's B-12 for that purpose also. The IAC motor varies the air at idle through a by-pass passage in the throttle body when it's closed at idle. Even the passage could have some deposit build-up in it, which would need to be cleaned out. Typically, the throttle bodies on the 3800 Buick V-6s are pretty much troublefree, but at your extended mileage, there could be some deposits in there, I suspect, or even a throttle shaft with some wear on it and/or the throttle body where is. There should be a plug-in on the side of the transaxle case for the converter wiring. It would be separate from the speed sensor for the speedometer and such. Not sure if it would set a Check Engine light if you unplugged it, though, either from not locking up or from the computer's diagnostics. Unless you have a converter problem, leave it plugged in. If there is a converter problem, then it needs to be fixed as there's probably clutch material from the torque converter clutch in places is should not be. A converter clutch that does not unlock at lower speeds, due to a failed converter lockup solenoid on the valve body, can cause stalling too. If the solenoid is sticking or fails to let the converter unlock, unplugging it might not help. That's an easy fix, anyway, plus you might as well change the fluid and filter while you're changing it too. Guess you're just going to have to get this one diagnosed as there are too many variables and possible remedies involved. Enjoy! NTX5467

In many cases, OEM cast iron exhaust manifolds are designed to seal "metal to metal" against the cylinder head. If everything remains tight, all is well and quiet (with no "ticking" noise under acceleration). In some cases where the OEM manufacturer did not use exhaust manifold gaskets between the manifold and cylinder head, the aftermarket people might have. In some cases, they would have come in a "valve grind" gasket set if they exist in the aftermarket, but might not exist as individual items you can order separate from the gasket kit. As Buick engines of that vintage were somewhat popular in the street rod/hot rod crowds back then and used tubular exhaust headers in those applications, there might be some of the nostalgia hot rod vendors that would have "header gaskets" for your engine family. Maybe even FelPro has some now? I guess the key thing would be to search for header gaskets even though you are going to use them with the existing production cast iron exhaust manifolds, but if the existing manifolds aren't warped or have shrunk, they should work just fine without gaskets between them and the cylinder head. NTX5467

In general, there should not be any production "numbers" or other stampings on any crate motor that would be classified as a replacement motor. Any stampings would have been done for internal identification and crating purposes only and would be different from the production engine stampings. If, per chance, a crate motor was "excess production" to a particular vehicle specification, then it'd have the appropriate production stamps, but not any VIN stamps, I suspect. In other words, it would have been ready to have been shipped to a production plant for installation in a vehicle so it'd have the stampings and tags appropriate for that vehicle application. I ran across an engine casting number book at Borders a while back. Not just a Chevy or Ford or Chrysler oriented book, but it had everything built in North America up until sometime in the '70s or so. It might well have the information for identifying the engine that you desire, provided it has production stampings on it. Seems like I've seen some of that information on the Internet somewhere a while back. Also, somewhere on the block, there should be a GM casting number AND a casting date. For example, on the Chevy small blocks (which I know about) the casting number is on the side of the block, between the pan rail and the cylinder head deck surface. The casting date is on the rear of the block, usually toward the top, between the rear of the intake manifold and the transmission mounting area. It is a letter followed by two numbers--letter = month cast, next number = day of that month, next number = last digit of the decade it was cast in (i.e., A159 could be January 15, 1969; Jan. 15, 1979). Usually, there were enough differences in the block castings to easily determine which decade it was. Casting dates can preceed machining dates by up to six months, approximately. I suspect there was similar cast numbers and such on the other GM blocks. Key thing would be to find the book I mentioned. You might also use a GM/Buick Service Manual for some visual identification cues also. I've mentioned things in more general terms here. I hope that might help you identify what you're going to be looking at. Other thing would be if this was a genuine GM/Buick produced engine or if it's one that someone had "built" a while back and never used. Find out as much about the history of the motor as you can so that you'll know more about what you're dealing with AND if it's worth the asking price. If it's been sitting around for that long, it'd be a good idea to take it apart and see what deterioration might have taken place. Pay attention to the main oil passages in the crank and such too. In one respect, in worst case scenario you'll be buying an engine that's had all of the machine work done but needs to be pulled down for inspection and maybe vating it again (and all that means)prior to reassembly and ultimate use. Not much different than rebuilding an engine from an old vehicle that's been sitting for years, except you will have a "new" engine without doing any more machine work to it, hopefully. As a result, the extra work could affect the ultimate price paid for the engine. For example, I bought a 302 GMC short block that was on a closeout sale from GM a good while back. New in the crate (and a heavy one at that!). I also have two bare blocks for a GMC 270. Rare? Yes. Worth much? Probably not except to someone that really needs one for a restored vehicle. After I got the 302 short block, I later found out the hot trick was a 302 with the lighter 270 crank and rods in it (or something to that effect). At least my investment is not very deep in any of them. Happy shopping! NTX5467