NTX5467

The one "trick" thing that Dexcool does, from what I've read in GM service literature, is that during the first 3000 miles of use in a new vehicle, it chemically coats the entire cooling system with a corrosion preventative. With that issue taken care of, the other differences in the Dexcool formulation can be utilized to their fullest extent and also allows the silicates to be removed (which is claimed to affect water pump seal life). If someone mixes regular green coolant with Dexcool, it compromises all of the Dexcool benefits and the system needs to be completely flushed and returned to the previous Dexcool formulation as soon as possible. We have seen some systems where people have not maintained them at all, adding green on top of orange as they either didn't know better, didn't care, or couldn't afford Dexcool. If the system is continuously operated "low" on coolant, the same situation as we had with the S-10s comes into play except it looks like a cooling system full of mud. To get past that, then a chemical coolant flush procedure needs to happen and things put back "right" with Dexcool. To my knowledge, GM has never publicly stated that Dexcool could be used in earlier vehicles than which it came factory equipment in. Texaco, on the other hand, stated early on on their website, that if you flushed the existing system with clean water TWICE, then you could use Dexcool but only with a 50,000 mile change interval and NOT the 100,000+ miles interval on the GM vehicles it came from the factory with. That was before the issues of maintaining the correct coolant levels at all times and having good radiator caps had surfaced in the field. Even though the system was fully purged of the green coolant, there apparently is enough residual coolant that has permeated the inner surfaces of the enigne block and other items it has touched to compromise the ultimate benefits of the Dexcool coolant (i.e., longevity). We sell "aftermarket" Dexcool for about $12.00/gallon and green "aftermarket" coolant for $7.50/gallon. In both cases, the genuine GM items are more expensive, but still in about the same proportion. Paying the extra premium to use Dexcool in an older system with very little extra change interval extension recommended in that situation, for no real benefits, seems a little strange--but the observed service and engineering reasons for not using Dexcool in a vehicle it did not come from the factory with (unless the vehicle might have a completely new--not used--engine, radiator, heater core, and other stuff as I mentioned perviously--with a properly maintained CLOSED coolant system and recovery jug, which would approximate the same conditions as a new car would have in those situations) are the main reasons for not using Dexcool in those non-factory applications. Dexcool is still an Ethylene Glycol formulation and offers no increase in freeze protection over any other coolant, regardless of dye color. Adding a working coolant recovery system to a vintage vehicle would probably take points from it in car show judging situations. Keeping the radiator constantly full when cold would result in unsightly "puking" from the existing radiator overflow tube plus the deposit accumulation in the radiator tank near the filler neck with time, possibly. End result, you can create your own problems by trying to use Dexcool in an earlier vehicle or not keeping the coolant recovery jug full in a late model vehicle it came in from the factory. I hope that further clarifies those concerns for you. Enjoy! NTX5467

The necessity to change has one main reason, which I discovered back in the middle '80s from a BASF/Saab coolant handout brochure. Ethylene Glycol is a natural enemy of the lead solder used in the radiator tanks and heater cores, therefore an additive package in the coolant has to be put in place to keep this from happening. Just as oil never wears out, the ethylene glycol probably doesn't either but when the additive package is depleted with time and age, that's when the problems start--probably not an overnight situation, but one that takes a while to happen. There is also an alkalinity "window" that is also realted to this situation, as I understand. The Shell Rotella coolant I mentioned is rated to 600,000 miles in over-the-road diesel use and I also seem to recall that it has some additives to prevent cavitation around cylinder liners (possibly similar in concept to the "wetter water" additives?). At 300,000 miles, it will require a "booster shot" of a particular additive, which I suspect is for corrosion protection similar to the "corrosion inhibitors" we used to regularly see in the '60s. I do not know what materials are in those diesel cooling systems, but the way the Shell engineer talked in those Car & Driver columns, this coolant would be a better alternative than Dexcool by a long shot in a collector type vehicle that sees limited use. That was a few months back so you might want to check with your library people to find those articles, do your own research, and make your own decisions. The green color is just a dye for identification and has no real bearing on coolant condition and/or protection other than to possibly indicate the degree of dilution of the coolant in the cooling system. Seems like some of the coolant brands in the '60s (maybe Zerex?) were blue or another unique color consistent with that particular brand? The other issue on modern, computer controlled vehicles is that many sensors are positioned to contact coolant just as the temperature gauge sensor/sending unit do. If these sensors are "one wire" sensors, that means they ground through the coolant and then through the engine itself. If the conductivity of the coolant is "out of spec" it can cause these sensors (which obviously operate off of a voltage/resistance situation) to give false readings to the engine computer and could ultimately result in a hard to trace and fix driveability concern. Those driveability concerns also might affect whether or not the vehicle might pass an emissions test too as the fuel curve map would be shifted from the desired values. Now, it seems that more and more coolant temp sensors are "2 or more wire" sensors which means they either have more than one circuit they feed or they now ground through the ECM. I suspect that as the miles on your vehicles were almost exlusively highway miles, that means the engine was up to operating temperature for longer periods of time. Just as with motor oil, that operation could result in all of the "bad" things not happening as they would in more short trip/city driving where the engine sees more heat transitions per day. For example, GM is now putting Engine Oil Life Monitors on many of their vehicles. It turns on the Change Oil light dependent on how the vehicle is operated. On the new Trailblazer with the new inline 6 cylinder engine, the cooling system was upgraded so much that an engine oil cooler is not needed even for severe trailer activity. That plus the aluminum engine castings result in the computer not turning on the Change Oil light for up to 15,000 miles if the conditions are right (according to GM's research) or it can turn it on in as little as 3000 miles in a cold climate with many short trips. On the vehicles which have the later style composite radiators and heater cores, which your Astro van could well have, there is no lead solder in the system. BUT the radiator and heater cores and some piping are aluminum so that protection will need to be maintained to prevent corrosion. From my own experiences, looking down through the filler neck of a radiator migth not be the best judge of condition on crossflow radiators (with side tanks instead of top/bottom tanks). What can look decent on the top could drastically change as you progress toward the bottom core area--to the extent that the bottom is plugged with sediment and settled out silicates that can't be seen from above. As always, highway miles are still the easiest on the vehicle. The more consistent temperatures mean that fluids stay hotter so any condensate contamination (and related chemical issues) is cooked out with use or minimized. Therefore, if they don't break down, their lifespan is extended. Even though the temperature gauge might be in the center, it takes about 10 miles in moderate temperatures for the axles and other powertrain components to get up to THEIR operating temperatures. The longer they stay in those temperature ranges the better for the fluids and lube. Normal engine oil and automatic transmission fluid start becoming compromised past 270 degrees F. with some brands going up to about 300 degrees prior to their integrity being compromised. Hope this might help explain some of those concerns for you. Enjoy! NTX5467

Dexcool did appear after the lead was out of the cooling systems (i.e., solder that seals the tanks on the radiator and heater cores), but I don't think it will harm the brass or copper. From what I discovered, you MUST use it in a closed cooling system with coolant recovery system--period--and you have to keep the radiator full all of the time with that system and have a good, quality radiator cap on the radiator. Otherwise, you have the same problems that many late model S-10s had with it corroding up the filler necks and such. A better alternative might be the Rotella Extended Life coolant for over-the-road diesels. It's not Dexcool but does have extended change intervals. I read about it in one of the editorials in Car and Driver a while back. You can check it out on the web in the Shell website and see what you think. Our local WalMart has it in the 50-50 premixed version with details on how to use it on the bottle. In reality, paying more to use less is not very good considering a system that has already had regular green coolant in it is not recommended to go past about 50,000 miles on the change interval with Dexcool. You can find those things out on the Texaco website and also probably on the back of the Dexcool bottle. Considering that, you're better off to use the existing low silicate green coolant of a good brand and continue as you have in previous times. Dexcool is designed to work only in the vehicles for which it came in from the factory, where the original factory fill was with Dexcool and had recommended change intervals of 100,000+ miles. Using it in a system that came with green coolant will not be really cost effective or beneficial. Possibly the only way Dexcool might be an option would be with a completely new/rebuilt motor, new radiator, new heater core, new radiator cap, and new rubber hoses PLUS the coolant recovery system I mentioned. Still, I think I'd stay with the existing green coolant even with all of that stuff being fresh and new and such. Other than the longevity in the new cars, Dexcool has no other real benefits. The silicate free formula might extend the life of water pump seals, as they mention, but we're still selling water pumps at 70,000-100,000 miles on some vehicles as in the past. Thanks for the comments, Roberta. Enjoy! NTX5467

Most any Olds V-8 should go in the place of the 5.7L Olds Diesel V-8. The main thing to worry about is changing the WHOLE FUEL SYSTEM and ALL EMISSIONS HARDWARE to what it would have been if it had been a 307 Olds gasoline V-8 engine in there to start with. Check your local state inspection and emissions regulations before you even consider doing this to that car. Most emissions checks are keyed from the VIN (as there is a designated character in there for the engine the vehicle originally came with) and if they find it is a "converted" vehicle, it could well be trouble unless you can prove it has everything emissions wise it would have had if it had been a gas V-8 model. That includes the catalytic converter exhaust, all evaporative emissions items (including the fuel tank sending unit), a fuel tank with the restrictor door in it, PLUS any computer hardware to run the gasoline V-8 that the diesel didn't have. A different instrument cluster with an "Unleaded Fuel Only" fuel gauge would probably be needed also. Might consider parking it until it gets to be 25 years old and then register it as an "antique". In many states, such vehicles are not part of the emissions checks but have mileage and other limitations on their use (i.e., not a daily driver). Just some thoughts . . . NTX5467

I might add a few comments to what Jeff has just said. There is no "one way" to run a car club organization and its magazine. We put great weight on having our national meet judging validated before that awards list goes to press for all to see. Therefore, such validation is deemed a necessary part just as checking a sales order prior to shipment is expected to happen. If any mistakes are made, it's harder to fix them after the fact than before. Manually validating the results, as Rick does, plus addressing complaints in the process (after the fact), can take quite some time to complete. His work is appreciated in that respect, as was Mac's previously! In recent times, I perceive that the BCA National Meet judging has been very accomodating in trying to address isues relating to how the vehicles were judged at a particular national meet. Nothing wrong with that--if a valid mistake was made, then it was addressed. Yet that whole Owner's Recourse thing had gotten so burdensome for several reasons that it was not really serving the purpose it was designed to serve. When things get to that point, changes need to be made and they were. I like the concept of owner's recourse, personally, but as it was it just was not working. At some point in the future, it might return in a more modified form but I am not expecting that to happen anytime soon. Not to imply that what the OCA does or how they do things is inaccurate or substandard in the least! If, perhaps, they have some orientations and procedures that are better than ours, we could investigate to see how it all happens as part of a continuous improvement feedback loop. There can be many side issues involved here which can also relate to the turnaround time of presenting those results to the magazine for publication and then the magazine getting them in print and distributed. I do know from our experiences with the local OCA chapter, that they typically go in their own direction on many things. Nothing wrong with that, even if it deviates from the best direction that our local BCA chapter has repeatedly determined to be the best for our purposes. Just some thoughts . . . NTX5467

First order of business should be to find a vacuum port on the carb that is "ported", which it should be as there should be no vacuum to the air cleaner as later models have. BUT if the primary throttles are opened too much, you will see approximately manifold vacuum at the ported vacuum port. I suspect that if you first get the idle speed down to specs in neutral, then you will BOTH have little vacuum at that vacuum port and regain the desired and necessary sensitivity in the idle mixture adjustment. Why? Because with the carb basically working at fast idle (or the throttle is opened up enough to approximate that without the choke doing it) the carb is already pulling enough air to be working on the main system instead of the idle system. If the throttle plates are opened more than about .040" above the curb idle port in the throttle body, they they are open too much to be pulling exclusively from the idle system. If the idle speed screw is backed completely out and the idle speed is still too high, then it's either an unfound vacuum leak OR the secondary throttle plates in the base plate are cracked too far open. On a Holley 4bbl, the secondary throttle plates have an adjustment as they also have an idle system to circulate fresh fuel into the rear bowl when the secondaries are not in use, but I don't recall that on the Carters. So, if the rear throttle plates on the Carter are cracked open at all, they flow air only and not air/fuel. Hence, a higher idle speed similar to an intake leak. I seem to recall you have an Edlebrock version AFB on there. Is that correct? If you do have the later style Edlbrock AFB, do the throttle bore sizes (primary and secondary) match the manifold and are not hanging up on the gasket or manifold casting itself? I suspect that once you get the idle speed back to normal and regain the sensitivity of the idle system with the mixture screws, things will start acting correctly. One of the best ways to check for an intake leak is to pay attention to how the engine acts when you take it up to about 1500-2000rpm and let the throttle snap back to idle. If there's an intake leak, it will initialy slow down a good bit, but linger a little at the lower speed range just before it finally returns to base idle. If everything's tight with no leaks, it will not have that lingering and return to base idle in a linear manner--providing there are no dashpots to slow that last initial closing rate. When you do get the idle speed and mixture to specs, you should be able to slow the idle speed to slower than about 400rpm in neutral just by turning the idle speed screw. My gut suspicion, without looking at any specs, is that if you can get the slow idle to about 600-650 in neutral with the a/c running (if equipped) and maybe even the headlights on, then it should reliably drop down to about 550 in gear. My shadetree method of setting idle speed is to get it just fast enough for the pulses in the exhaust pipe (at the back of the car) to just smooth out with it in gear and with the a/c and stuff turned on. From my experience on other cars wth non-spreadbore carbs, that works out to about 600rpm or thereabouts in neutral. From that point, set the mixture to "lean best idle" and recheck the speed and pulses. Once you get it fully finessed, it should be about as perfect as it can be for that particular engine, trans, converter combination. I suspect that right now, if you stood behind the car with it running, the excess hydrocarbons would make you step back a few feet. Whether from lean misfire or whatever, it should not be that way. Hope that might help . . . NTX5467

I tend to concur with Willie's comments and might add that the judgment of our forum host and moderator be trusted about doing these upgrades. There are lots of new fetures and enhancements, for sure, and with time everyone's "Anonymous" name will be replaced with their existing automatic (for registered members) login name from the previous situation. This last item has taken a few days to happen, but the other forums now recognize my user name and such. I'm not sure if that situation resulted from additional programming or other situations, but I know it has happened. We also have more information available to us, it seems, regarding other things the previous version did not have. As always, just because there are more bells and whistles doesn't mean you have to use them. But, once you get your power seat set where you like it, you seldom go back to change the adjustment. Enjoy! NTX5467

Thanks for that information, Jeff! I appreciate you information on that issue and also appreciate the time that it took Rick to validate the results prior to publication. Thanks, again, NTX5467

With respect to the NASCAR deals, when the current Grand Prix body debuted in that race series, it was supposed to have much better aerodynamics than the Monte Carlo and looked like it should have. For some reason, the GP has not had the successes in NASCAR that it should have in more recent years. Everybody's got a "spec" chassis rolling on "spec" tires so just the setup and engine and drivers--plus the NASCAR "aero package" is all that's different. Some are "user issues" and others are NASCAR's doings. Seems like the GM management consolidated all of the NASCAR activities under one person, if I recall correctly. Perhaps the GM "corporate" racer groups should use the "One Team" approach that seems to work for the Chrysler guys? Also recall that the 4-4-2 package was not tied to the biggest engine option its first year, but came to include the more powerful engines in later years, just as the '70 Buick Skylark GS came with a 350-4bbl V-8 but the GS455 came with the 455 V-8 as standard. We've tended to associate the 4-4-2 and Skylark GS with the larger engines which might have been more common in them, but that wasn't the case initially. The reason I suggested the "W" Machine deal was to use something historically significant in the Olds performance heritage that would not be tied to a specific model of Olds, but a high performance option package instead. Of course, W-30 and W-31 would not be allowed, but other W-numbers could be. Perhaps the Special Edition Alero could come in regular versions with trim and paint and such but might also have a high performance version with a W-code designation? Dr. Oldsmobile could also give them his magic touch before his powers were completely depleted too, for the media advertising. Several nice tie-in there. When the designers and engineers get a vehicle proposal together and get it priced out, they can determine how and where they spend their money. In the case of the GM W-cars, Grand Prix was the first one out with the others following a little while later. Therefore, the benchmark pricing was very possibly using a vehicle with the Buick V-6 and it was a setup for the similar Intrigues with the later 3.5L V-6 to be low profit vehicles, comparatively speaking, it would seem. When you start with a clean sheet of paper as the Chrysler guys did with their LH cars, you can juggle things around at that time to compensate for a more expensive high tech engine. Not all of the LH cars had the Chrysler high performance V-6 as some had the pushrod 3.3L V-6 as standard equipment. Therefore, if their pricing benchmark allowed the more expensive V-6 to start with, the lesser engine just ensured greater profits. Also note that the original version of Chrysler 3.5L V-6 had basically the same horsepower as the Intrigue's "later to market" 3.5L V-6 and used variable intake tuning to get a broader torque curve than the GM engine had. It kind of seemed like GM added their 3.5L V-6 as a "have to" deal and when the Chrysler guys upped the ante with their 2nd Gen 3.5L V-6 and 253 horsepower and 140+mph top speed (with the Performance Handling Package and higher speed rated Michelins on the 300M), GM did not respond in like kind with their 3.5L V-6 as they probably felt the supercharged 3800 would suffice, but that never made it into an Olds Intrigue (although I understand it was in the original business plan). It would have been nice if the Intrigue had been the last Olds produced, but the Alero had higher sales numbers so it got a longer life span as the Intrigue was not selling very well at the time. But they didn't ask us what our preferences would be so we have to take what we can get. I feel that a 4.0L V-8 Intrigue would have been a car I would certainly have tried to get, even if it had 4 doors. When the new GM line of V-6s comes out in a few years, the current Chevy and Buick V-6s will probably disappear unless the Buick guys get totally irate. Reports are for the same family to support "high value" (pushrod) V-6s and also "high feature" (overhead camshafts) V-6s for the higher car lines. If they work the same good stuff that they did with the new 2.2L EcoTec 4-cylinder, the new engines will be pretty dang good, performance wise. I also suspect they'll also use variable valve timing and other tweaks that were not available in the past and could not be readily adapted to the 3.1/3.4L Chevy V-6 or the Buick 3800 V-6. Even as good as it is, the tooling for those Chevy and Buick V-6s will wear out at some time or another anyway so if new stuff has to be ordered, it might as well be new and innovative. As for the special edition Alero, it would be nice if a higher performance version could be configured without giving up any of its nice luxury amenities while upgrading the power and handling several notches. Hopefully an appropriate nomenclature can be agreed upon that will not besmirch the hallowed reputations of prior Oldsmobile performance vehicles too. Something that was worthy of being "Father's Oldsmobile"! Why is it that Chrysler and Ford can pull of their "heritage" tie-ins to current vehicles and GM just doesn't seem to be able to pull it off? Especially with the cars? Just curious . . . and not meaning to get this discussion any further away from the original subject matter. Enjoy! NTX5467

Thanks for the updates and information. Willis Bell 20811 NTX5467

The main reason you saw so many overhead camshaft motors after the "turbo days" was due to cold start emissions. The turbo cars' turbocharger acted like a heat sink and resulted in not enough heat getting to the catalytic converter to get it fired off quickly enough. The 4 valve per cylinder motors had similar or higher power without that emisisons test penalty. Add in the fact that most other "high line" makers which competed with Olds had 4 valve/cylinder OHC or DOHC motors and you see why the "Intrigue V-6" (aka, "ShortStar) existed. Reports were that the 3.5L would replace the supercharged 3800 Buick motor, but also with a supercharger for a "double whammy" effect, it seems. That probably was the master plan before it was altered in the later years. If you look at GM Parts price list prices, there's about a $700.00/car additional cost for the 3.5L V-6 over the non-supercharged 3800 V-6 (with about 15 horsepower less power). Doesn't take a rocket scientist accountant to seize on those numbers! Yes, the 3.5L was a more refined motor with greater performance potential and finally let the Intrigue go head to head with Chrysler on the LH cars in equipment specs, but accountants (with all due respect) can't justify spending more money for "the same thing" they can get less expensively. One reason the Intrigue and Grand Prix were paired in the same plant could have been a precursor of the fact that the Grand Prix was supposed to later use the 3.5L supercharged motor in a later Grand Prix GTP. Pontiac would be a better use of that motor anyway than would Buick. If you have followed the evolution of the Intrigue, many of the Intrigue-specific items on the vehicle have been slowly and quietly replaced with items from Grand Prixs. The Intrigue-specific 4-stage-valving front struts gave way to the Grand Prix front struts a few years ago. The electric fuel door lock was deleted. There are some other items, but they elude me right now. Yet the more expensive Intrigue-style fold down rear seat is now used on Regals too. When Zarella mentioned that they were loosing money on every Olds they built, I strongly questioned that statement (used as justification to end Olds production). Later, when I finally got around to looking at main vehicle components on the W-platform, the only significant thing was the 3.5L V-6 engine. Everything else priced out to be the same, at least in the GM Parts Price schedule for replacement parts. I suspect that when a Regal GS and an Intrigue GLS sold for similar sticker prices, the engine obviously made the Olds less profitable. But those days are behind us! It would have been nice to see Lutz mold Olds into a more European oriented car line that could compete head to head with Jaguar and Mercedes--if GM could fund a few extra things here or there to achieve that end, but the plans for the Sigma platform were already in place so Olds again seemed to sacrifice for the good of other GM divisions and their future. Lutz, or any other car-oriented person, could have tweaked Olds and put some new advertising in place to get things moving again--for very little additional costs that were not already budgeted. The problem was an observed "parade" of upper management through the division (of which Ms. Francis was one). It's hard to build morale with the troops when these changes are happening all of the time. Add in the fact that many of the "better people" left after the first rumors of Olds allegedly being cut in '92 (when John Rock supposedly said "Over my dead body!") and you end up with a somewhat compromised situation. But, just because some of the people left didn't necessarily mean the remainder were incapable of doing great things either. It all comes down to "direction" from management. GM has the capabilities to do some neat things with the last Aleros and let things go out on a positive note. With respect to the comment about how many of the earlier Olds models are still running around, I've seen quite a few Achievas lately--many of which still have good paint and appear to be "estate" cars getting back into circulation. They aren't being driven by old people either! Interesting that they finally hit their intended target market in later life. All of the marketing whizes talk about "old" people being the only ones to buy Olds and Buicks, but if you look at who the "second owners" are, they are typically much younger that the first owners of the cars--a fact that has yet to be fully documented, but can be readily observed in the various W-body forums and such on the various GM enthusiast websites. Many of these forum participants are equally as enthusiastic about those makes as the traditional new car customers were in prior times. The challenge is to channel those younger people into newer versions of their existing GM cars--plus the respective national car club organizations such as OCA and BCA. Just some thoughts . . . NTX5467 from the BCA General Forum

Thanks for the information and updates. Sounds quite a bit more complicated than the Chevy kit I had or the Chrysler units. That was back when each GM division pretty much did their own thing, also. One reason the Pontiac service manual might be a little vague on it could be that there was a separate manual specifically for that set-up? Just a thought. Enjoy! NTX5467

Is the complete setup you purchased an GM Accessories factory kit or the pieces from the production option? There could be some differences. The Chrysler unit I mentioned was circa '67 and prior. There was a dial on the instsrument panel with some sort of "ON" switch in it. Once engaged, you rolled the dial (with reference numbers on it) to the desired speed (above about 30 mph) and could vary the speed with the dial. On some, there was a small set screw adjustment so you could adjust the numbers to approximate the mph on the speedometer. The control box was mounted on the lh inner fender skirt with linkage to the carb from there. Pretty much self-contained. In the '80s, I orchestrated a deal for a friend to purchase the obsolete parts from an old dealership a work associate had bought. In that "stash" was a factory cruise kit for a '65 or '66 Impala. It was the same type as the one Chrysler used--except it mounted the control box on the core support by the radiator. Naturally, the speedometer cables were very long. It worked the carb with a long rod that approached from the front instead of from the rear. Quite a bizarre setup! I wanted it to possibly adapt to my '66 Chrysler, but when I saw how unusual it was, I halted that idea. I don't know if I would have put it on anything as explaining what it was would have been more hassle than it was worth, even though it was a factory Chevrolet accessory item. On the system on the Buicks back then, I suspect the concept of how they operated compared to the Chrysler unit is similar as the control box "guts" would most probably be the same. The switches and how they operated the control box would vary. Chrysler used one integrated switch where it appears that Buick and other GM lines used a couple of different ones. I suspect troubleshooting would be similar in concept to the Chrysler systems also, but Chrysler never used a speed buzzer or extra needles on their speedometers. In one respect, it can all boil down to having good electrical contacts in the wiring harness, in the switches, and inside the control box (i.e., contact points as in a clock, I suspect). As with a clock, the contact points could be gummed up with age and environmental exposure and grease residue. Cleaning them might be all that is needed as the basic calibration would not have changed over the years, typically. Good luck with your project. NTX5467

What I call "The Thunderbird Syndrome" (remember the T-bird steering columns that move sideways to allow for easier entry and exit, but only in Park, from the early '60s?) is a somewhat common GM tilt steering wheel issue with time and age. Tightening the bolts/screws mentioned is the fix, but you'll need to disassemble the column below the tilt portion of the column, very possibly. This isn't a simple operation and requires some special tools and/or someone that's been there before. In some cases, you might be able to get to the screws/bolts wtih a long extension, but my sources tell me that is somewhat rare and taking the tilt joint apart is usually the quickest way to do it. You will most probably discover, upon disassembly, that the pot metal casting that the screws go through is cracked out on the upper edge--where it's pretty thin. When the tilt lever is activated and the upper column area pops up, it appears that this area of the casting takes that force. Ther is a pretty strong spring on the lower side of the column that pops the column upward when the tilt lever is activated too, which must be removed. Dealing with those deals down there is pretty simple, but does require some particular tools and expertise that requires "knowing what you're looking at" to deal with. Getting the upper lock plate off is pretty easy. Don't forget about the spring wire retainer that seats against the lock plate! If you loose it, you can fabricate another one from a paper clip or buy a new one from GM as they fit pretty much every GM column of that type. There is also a strong spring under the lock plate that requires the special tool to compress and remove or coordinate your feet and hand activities--the tool is much easier and is available at most auto supplies. Most large metro areas have specialized GM steering column repair shops. Of course, you could also take it to the dealer. When you get the column apart, it would also be a good time to put some lube on the bearings in the upper steering column housing where the shaft comes through. Plus inspect the plastic gear that runs the ignition switch "rack" in the column for wear. Everytime you turn the ignition key, those things ignition cylinder related items move quite a bit and might need a new dab of grease. On reassembly, make sure none of the little ball bearings in the upper housing bearings get dislodged or if you replace the bearings that you get all of the old races out of the column. ALSO, when you disassemble the tilt joint make absolutely sure you get the upper shaft in the previous orientation to the bottom shaft (note the location of the "master spline" on the upper shaft!) as of it is put in "out of sync" the turn signals will not cancel when they should. Reassembly of the upper to lower shafts at the tilt joint, with them being 180 degrees out, will result in the steering wheel being installed upside down. The lock plate at the top of the steering wheel also determines the orientatin of the horn contact (which must index with the steering wheel exactly for the horn contact's intermediate parts to line up). On the back tube of the turn signal circular horn contact (under the lock plate) are the tabs that cancel the turn signals at the appropriate time. Therefore, if the upper shaft is not put on as it needs to be, not only will the steering wheel be upside down the turn signals will not cancel automatically as they previously did. Dealing with the upper portion of the column where the turn signal switch is is pretty straight forward and only requires the lock plate tool and other common hand tools, but to me, getting past that point could be best left to those who've done it before. Just some thoughts and reminders of side issues on that deal . . . NTX5467

Hooking a more modern GM transmission to the engine is one part of the "battle". How do you propose to deal with the rear of the transmission and the torque tube drive/coil spring rear suspension without completely fabricating a custom setup? Perhaps a later model DynaFlow would be a better alternative? Maybe one from the earlier '60s that might have had some production/operational improvements in the process? On a '62 chassis Buick LeSabre, it is possible to do that as Phoenix Transmissioin (Greg knew exactly which parts to get from the salvage yard and such) did a swap to a Turbo400 for one of our club members that really unleashed the power of his Buick V-8, but doing the same on the year of Buick you have might be a different issue due to the torque tube/coil spring rear suspension. Just some thoughts . . . NTX5467

My '68 LeSabre with a 350-4bbl also has the heater control "water valve" behind the carburetor. According to my '68 Buick factory Service Manual, the '68 430 and 350 4bbl motors have that valve in the same location behind the carbutetor. BUT the valves are NOT the same valve--the GM parts manual shows two different part numbers for valves that look the same, EXCEPT the 430 valve is a tad taller than the 350 valve for some reason. The 430 valve will work in the 350 with no problems other than you'll need a few extra circular gaskets (common Q-Jet carb to air cleaner gaskets) between the carb and air cleaner to space the air cleaner up slightly, otherwise it will be cocked slightly front to back. On my '68 350, it appears that the part of the intake manifold casting that the valve screws into CAN be very fragile as it's pretty thin between the casting's edge and the hole the water valve screws into. It looks like a litle too much resistance in installing the valve could result in it cracking out. I suspect the 430 manifold might be similar just as the other heater hose hooks to the front of the engine. As it takes two heater hoses to make the heater work, if one of the hoses is attached at the front of the engine, where is your other heater hose attached (other than to the heater core)? Just curious. It could be that installing a more common hose nipple in the intake manifold on those Buick engines might be a better alternative than having the valve directly installed into the manifold. There is an S-10 heater hose with a right angle molded into it, but I'm not sure if the size is correct for those Buicks. This way, an inline water valve from another GM application could be put in and the hole in the intake manifold would be less of an issue to me. It would be easier to change too. Just some thoughts on that issue that might explain why the intake manifold might have been changed--if it indeed has. Enjoy! NTX5467

You have two different functions you are talking about. The extra needle on the speedometer is for the Speed Minder buzzer that alerts you when you exceed the speed you have the needle set at. That's all it does. There is a knob to move the needle to different speeds. Otherwise, GM's cruise controls (as well as Chrysler and Ford systems of that general vintage) have a miminum "set" or "cut-in" speed of about 30mph. Therefore, it is not designed to operate below that speed. Depending on how your particular cruise transducer is calibrated, it could well be 35mph before it will set and hold that speed. When you do set the cruise, it should lock in on the speed that you pushed the "Engage" button and hold it within about 2 mph. Sometimes, they will briefly accelerate for a second or two as the transducer gets its activity sorted out, but if correctly adjusted they should engage smoothly and accurately. In other cases, it might let the vehicle's speed drop a few mph or gain a few mph when it sets. I'd recommend you just adjust your procedures to compensate for that situation. I'm not sure what the glowing light situation might mean, but it probably would be good to check the wiring to the transducer and the related connections in that harness. In those GM systems back then and up until the early '80s, the speedometer cable goes into the cruise transducer mounted on the lh front fender apron. A speedometer cable attaches to the output side of the transducer and then goes to the speedometer. There are some vacuum lines that connect to the transducer from the intake manifold and the other one goes to the cruise servo vacuum diaphragm that mounts near the back of the engine block. The cruise servo runs a linkage of some sort of a ball chain to pull the carb linkage and override the foot throttle during normal operation, but the foot throttle can override the cruise in the case of needed acceleration. With respect to the cruise transducers, there are 2 wire models and 3 wire models. 3 wire models have an extra wire to run the indicator lamp on the instrument panel when the system is engaged. Otherwise, they are the same unit. When GM went to the "memory cruise" version, they added mounting holes for a vacuum chopper solenoid that would mount to the bottom of the transducer. The turn signal levers for these cruises had the slide lever with "OFF", "ON", and "RESUME" in that order. Those transducers can be substituted for the earlier models, as I recall, but without the extra solenoid attached. Under the instrument panel, there should be what looks like a brake light switch, but also has a vacuum line attached to it. It is part of the vacuum line source for the transducer to do its functions. If, by chance you have one of the Dana/Perfect Circle cruise units from the middle '60s as factory equipment, there should be some sort of speed dial that you can engage the unit (again, at about 30-35mph) and then roll the dial to the desired speed setting. Instead of the vacuum actuation of the later models, there should be a stepper motor and a solid linkage to the carb. Any override functions will be internal with the stepper motor unit. This system should be similar to what Chrysler used until '67 and on some Fords also. Good, solid electrical connections are necessary. With this type of system, there is no "RESUME" function. If you're at the speed where it will set, you get it to engage there and then move the setting up to where you want it to be without any action with the accelerator pedal. The cruise setting can be moved downward in a similar fashion. It's also necessary to make sure the speedometer cables into and out of the cruise unit are in good shape and lubricated. On the later versions, if the transducer locks up, things come to a halt real quick with that lower cable and will damage the speedometer gear and the cable end where it indexes with the speedometer driven gear. With the main speed reference signal gone, the cruise should shut down and the speedometer needle go to zero while you're driving. In the case of the speedometer, it's just a meter that registers speed and should have no bearing on what the cruise control does or does not do. The Speed Minder buzzer probably uses a simple contact switch on the back of the speedometer unit, but should not affect how the speedometer operates. I mention both of these types of cruise controls as I'm not sure which system your vehicle has. My '68 Buick Service Manual shows the vacuum system I mentioned first, but with switches on the instrument panel instead of using the turn signal lever as later versions did. It appears the instrument panel switches operate the same as the later turn signal lever switches do, though, with respect to "SET" and "COAST" features--plus having the indicator lamp. I hope this information helps. NTX5467

As I recall, with all due respect, that our BCA Nationals has been in the issue of The Bugle that comes out a few months after the meet--even with the previous vendors. From the signals I saw at the Board meeting in Kokomo, that is still the way it's planned and was executed (as in the past). It can also depend on the mathod of publication they use. Typically, a 90 day delay is the norm. Look at your mainstream car magazines and see how soon they get their coverages of events in print. If they use color separations and other procedures as part of their pre-print preparations, there is a certain amount of time that it takes for those things to happen. In that situation, each print color is separated from the others and a plate is made of that color--which means a multi-pass printing process for each page of the publication that has color on it. Similar in concept to the way an ink jet printer makes more than one pass with each color in the color print cartridge before it moves on to the next line it prints color on. I concur that with a completely digital medias, things might operate quicker with similar time frames as a large newspaper might have. BUT it takes more than a 2 megapixel camera to get the same detail as a similar film camera, for example. My gut suspicion is that if it was put in the next bid specs for the national meet coverage to be in the August issue of The Bugle, appropriate plans could be made in that direction as Baker Press appears to have much better capabilities than the previous vendor had and probably should or could have similar capabilities as the publisher of the OCA magazine. It is not my intention to justify how or what Baker does, but to mention some side issues in getting a color print publication from pre-production into our hands. I do not know if other national car club magazine publishers were approached in the previous bid processes and invited to submit a bid to do The Bugle. I seem to recall that the current bid specs were based on what some other national car clubs had in their respective publications, though. I concur that it would be interesting to see just how the Journey With Olds publisher does things and at what cost, but whether or not they would be interested in submitting a bid is their decision, especially if they don't have the capacity to add our publication to their schedule. This year, I got the pictures I shot at the national developed soon after I got home. Is it preferable to rush the picture coverage of the national event into print or have it happen a few months afterward so that the excitement level is extended into other parts of the year rather than being concentrated in just a month or two time frame? There could be justifications in each scenario. Did you also go to the myriad of Cadillac events in Detroit also, Scott? I understand from some friends (that made both events this year) that it was a fabulous event also. Just some thoughts . . . Enjoy! NTX5467

Depending on why you suspect you need the 100A alternator, you might be better served by upgrading the battery capacity instead of doing the alternator deal. There also might be a more local rebuilder that might be able to enhance your current alternator to put out more amps instead of getting involved in someone a good ways from you. The "competition sound" people might give you a good lead of someone local that upgrades alternators for ambulances and their boombox-on-wheels sound systems. Just some thoughts . . . NTX5467

Thanks, Loren. I understand what you mean. What's interesting is that the current fwd Impala in police configuration matched the current Crown Vic in the handling tests run by the Michigan State Police. In fact, with the 200 horse Buick V-6, the Impala didn't give up anything at all to the 4.6L Ford. And neither does the upcoming Dodge Intrepid police package. BUT, if Ford would get more serious with their suspension and engine packages, they would be in front just as Chevy was with their last generation Caprice police packages. The Astro van is a good, solid product and the 4.3L Chevy V-6 is very good also. As for the Rainier, with the 5300 V-8 in the lighter short wheel base version of that platform, some unsuspecting BMW X5 V-8 owners (and especially the people with 6 cylinder X5s!) might be surprised by the Rainier V-8 at the stop lights. Enjoy! NTX5467

3M used to have the Mylar tape in their automotive products catalog in varying widths. It would be good to use to restore the various door and interior trim panels it was used on in the '60s and has since peeled off, I suspect. It goes on like pinstripping tape.<P>Enjoy!<BR>NTX5467

From what I understand from our sales people, turning the "chrome plated plastic" emblems into "gold" is done with a simple brush on solution with everything still attached to the vehicle. In some cases, there were factory option "gold packages" that had the emblems gold from the factory.<P>In the case of earlier Cadillacs and such, the actual emblems and hood ornaments were removed from the vehicle and plated with "light brass" color plating or whatever. The existing chrome items were removed and exchanged for the replated "gold" items.<P>As for the plastic replating, when Chevy first used a grille with chrome trim on the Berlinetta Camaros, they said it was done with a process called "sputtering" instead of spraying. Not sure what that is.<P>There are several vendors that replate plastic. Many of the chrome instrument panel bezels are waaay tooo shiney compared to their original satiny chrome finish. In the case of the exterior pieces, that might not be a real issue. <P>There are now several vendors that offer this service, but ask around before you send your items off to be done! You might end up loosing them. Seems like there might be something in Eastwood to do this at home?<P>Maybe if you sprayed some clear onto the inside of the part before spraying the silver? Basically paint it backwards, it might look better as the bottom of the paint is being seen as the top.<P>Enjoy!<BR>NTX5467

Before condemning the cluster, check the sensors and wiring going to it. The cluster works only on the information it gets just as a computer does--if it doesn't get good data, it can't supply good data.<P>When reinstalling the cluster, make sure you're "grounded" to the vehicle as some of those earlier clusters were very sensitive to static electricity issues. The approved "ground strap" was a conductive wrist band with a coiled lead attached to it to be attached to a good ground on the vehicle. The service literature of the time alluded to the fact that a good static electricity "zap" could "zap" a good cluster and make it a bad cluster. Considering the price of the exchange clusters, it's better to be safe than sorry.<P>NTX5467

One key item you need to address--the transaxle and it's torque capacity.<P>In a short feature in one of the high performance Pontiac magazines about 2 years ago, a guy stuffed a TBI Chevy 350 V-8 pickup truck motor into his Pontiac 6000 (A-body front wheel drive) and used the original transaxle, but with massive fluid flow modifications and custom made front drive axles. It DID fit, but the cost of doing the transaxle modifications alone probably exceeded the price value of the car itself.<P>Don't forget about brake and suspension upgrades too, to better support the increased performance capabilities of the upgraded engine!<P>Instead of looking at the rear wheel drive Regals, you probably need to look closer at the current front wheel drive Regals for modification ideas. Most of the performance items are listed for the similar Pontiac Grand Prix (which has a 110.5" wheelbase instead of the 109" wheelbase of the current Regals). Also, don't forget to get the complete computer and harness if you get a different engine for the vehicle too--most local emissions standards are written with the dialogue that the standards for modified vehicles are "for the newest year model, either the engine or the vehicle"--meaning that a 1987 car with a 2002 engine would need to meet 2002 emissions test standards, for example.<P>Air intake box modifications/replacements plus a cat-back exhaust system would be good starts as would an upgraded computer chip. Those would be the good basic starting points that will support later deals.<P>Enjoy!<BR>NTX5467

GM claims that their current DexronIII automatic transmission fluid is backward compatible back to that time frame. You might still find some Type A transmission fluid if you look around in the "lower brands" of transmission fluid at the auto supply.<P>You might check the service literature for that vehicle regarding the shock oil. Also be advised that similar fluid is still available at the motorcycle shops as "fork oil" (on the cycles, their shock absorbers are inside the forks of their suspension setup, similar in concept to the more modern struts on cars). There are various viscosities of fork oil just as there is motor oil. A technician once used that fork oil, in a lighter grade, to substitute for Pugeot shock oil one time with good results (cheaper and didn't have to wait for it to be ordered from France). Seems like it was not the lightest viscosity, but probably about two notches above that.<P>Enjoy!<BR>NTX5467