NTX5467
-
Posts
9,810 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Forums
Gallery
Events
Posts posted by NTX5467
-
-
1958 Buick tech advisor Wayne Meadlin viewed that car in a museum "up north" several years ago and took pictures of it then. As I recall him saying, the car had been there for many years at that time.<P>Enjoy!<BR>NTX5467
-
Our chapter director down here, Dale Sherman, has a very nice Riv convertible for sale in The Bugle. Purchased from the original owner a few years ago at the Buicks and Bluebonnets event in Salado. Most previous repair were done at the local dealer down there. It's a nice car, white exterior, but don't recall the engine. It's priced right too--check it out if you're looking for one.<P>Just wanted to mention that in case anyone was looking for a nice one.<P>When those cars were new, I'd have taken the Cadillac over the Riviera (I liked the lines better), but the Riviera was a nice car also.<P>Enjoy!<BR>NTX5467
-
I concur with many of Steve's comments, other than I would consider a new Dodge truck, especially when the new 5.7L HEMI gets in the 1/2 tons, or the SRT-10 model.<P>As for advertising, look where Buick advertised in the 1950s and 1960s and how they did it. LIFE, LOOK, and other mainstream American publications. Milton Berle, Bob Hope, and other similar big name televison shows were sponsored by Buick for many years. Even Perry Mason drove an Electra 225 in 1962.<P>Those earlier print ads extolled the virtures of the smooth DynaFlow transmission, the "balloon" tires, and other things Buick did differently than other GM divisions and its competitors. Things which built equity and value into the perception of Buicks.<P>For Buick to "hit the numbers" it will need a competitively "full" product mix as it had in 1966, for example. Unlike prior times, Buicks are typically assembled in plants shared with other GM car lines instead of Buick-specific plants. Therefore, Buick production is a necessary part of making those particular plants viable operating entities.<P>Buicks have been about "high style" and "prestige" for the bulk of their existence. Yet, in modern times, such advertising might infringe too much on Cadillac and its "fragile" situation.<P>As mentioned in the DeLorean book of 1981, GM never has had really "public" executives. The example was given of when Chevrolet started presenting the scholarship award for the teams MVP at the end of the game in the early 1970s. Initially, it was presented by a Chevrolet division executive, but a directive from upper GM management resulted in it being presented by the sports commentators instead. Chairman Lee's presence on TV was beneficial to Chrysler as Bill Ford's ads currently are for Ford. Lutz would be a prime candidate, but with his varied prior employments with Ford and Chrysler, he might not be the best choice. Proud, long time, loyal owners (younger than the typical Buick demographic might be necessary, along with the older demographics too) would be a start. Finding additional pitch men for the various models would be neat too, but more expensive. Tiger does well and seems to enjoy himself, but he's not the only one that can do those things.<P>Since the lead in for the Leno show used to show Jay in a red and white Buick convertible (1957?), what about him? In fact, I think it would be great if Buick was a lead sponsor of his show!<P>For the past two years, all Buick's had at the new car shows is the Rendezvous on prominent display. I've heard comments about "more Rendezvous" from people at the exhibits that were not too complimentary. There were more people looking at Cadillacs and their Escalades than at Buicks! I've seen comments about the Rendezvous basically being "their one trick pony". Not good! <P>I concur that possibly getting some of their "heritage" fleet out for these displays might be a good deal, but sales people are usually concerned not with what sold in prior times, but in these current times. If these earlier Buicks could help put value and equity back into the perception of the new Buicks, that might be a good deal. Key thing would be to tie in the earlier attributes with the newer attributes of decreased maintenance, industry leading fuel economy in their class, safety, security, luxury, and such it might be a great deal. It's all in how it's done. Of course, having REAL BUICK engines is a key part of that deal too!<P>Enjoy!<BR>NTX5467
-
Mike:<P>In doing research last year, I found a site run by air conditioning repair people. From reading the comments in there and also having a friend that worked for a major air conditioning parts manufacturer here in North Texas back before R134A replaced R12, I'll make the following comments.<P>The A6 GM compressor is plenty stout to handle the increased pressures of R134A, as are the Ford Tecumseh and Chrysler RV-2 compressors. Any old oil from the R12 system that's in the system at the time of changeover is supposed to turn to jelly and settle out in the lowest part of the system (i.e., in the bottom of the condensor). The pre-production testing on R134A was done with 20% more gas than R12 (from the chemical company recommendations) and the cooling was worse as it was later determined that it took 20% less gas for R134A than R12, therefore all of the initial results were for an "overcharged" system that will not cool as it should just as with R12 and an overcharged system.<P>My associate mentioned back then that Parker was considering coming out with a line of GM suction throttling valves calibrated for R134A. I don't know that that has happened, but I know that while the stock production valves ARE adjustable from their base calibration, the replacements have a black knob on the bottom to vary the calibration. I have since determined that the later orifice tube systems use the same diameter orifice as was used on the previous R12 systems. Therefore, existing calibrations might work pretty well as is.<P>As most of the factory a/c systems of the 1960s and 1970s typically had greater than necessary capacity for most situations, what's in your Buick should work fine with R134A--provided the system is not overcharged.<P>The old A6 GM compressor had a displacement of 10 cubic inches. The original R4 compressors were something like 8.6 cubic inches, but the later versions are all 10.4 cubic inches (or thereabouts). Most A6 "car" applications had the smaller pulley too.<P>One strategy my associate recommended to thoroughly clean the R12 oil out was to put the R12 recycle machine on "liquid flush" and get all of the oil out before the R134A oil and gas was installed from the R134A recycle freon recycle machine. If the old oil/jelly settles out in the bottom of the condensor, it decreases the condensor capacity that can result in less cooling performance.<P>Air flow through the condensor can be an issue too. The first GM light trucks to use R134a typically had "poor low speed a/c cooling" in traffic and low speed town operation in July down here. GM later went from the 7 blade metal fan to a plastic fan with about 12 blades (along with a different fan clutch attachment to the water pump--not interchangeable with previous systems unless you changed the water pump too). I suspect that was the year we didn't see any more of those low speed cooling complaints. Otherwise, an auxiliary electric fan in front of the condensor might be necessary. In any event, a correctly functioning fan clutch is also necessary.<P>Hoses? The people on the board were of the opinion that "seasoned" hoses from years of R12 use would be fine with R134A. When converting to "barrier" hoses, the "beadlock" fittings are necessary as the older "barb" fittings will probably puncture the barrier in the new hose and cause a very probable leak. They were of the orientation to try using the existing hoses first.<P>So, key issues: get the old oil out first if the new, more universal oil for the R134A conversion is not compatible with it; use 20% less gass by weight and also make sure the pressures are in line with the R134A specs at the same time; make sure there is adequate air flow across the condensor at low speeds (if there's not, the output will be warmer under those operating conditions); if overal performance at that point is not close to what it was with R12, then you might vary the existing calibration of the suction throttling valve or replace it with a newer one that has the knob. Always use the new fittings so there's no question of which gas is in the system.<P>One of our chapter members, a retired GM service rep, had his 1972 Skylark coupe converted to R134A two years ago and claims the system works fine with the R134A in it. If you desire to contact him, email me and I'll see if I can put you two together.<P>From my experience with the a/c on my '68 LeSabre convertible (5467), the heat load in a convertible (even with the top up) will be greater than for a closed car, therefore, the a/c tends to be more "to be comfortable" than for "freezing".<P>These are my comments based on what I've seen over the past years regarding R134A conversions. Others might have had different experiences and I respect that.<P>Naturally, GM's stance is that you should use R12 until the supply runs out--of USA produced gas, yet R12 is still produced in other parts of the world (although criminalized in the USA just as illegal guns and drugs are) but might not be of the same quality and purity as the USA produced gas.<P>From what I've seen, R134A conversions are not the monster that it was initially perceived to be. Worst case scenario, make sure the existing system is working and full of R12, pay the high prices for it, enjoy the trip, and worry about the conversion later.<P>Hope this helps you make your decision.<P>Have a great trip in your Buick!<P>NTX5467
-
Take your existing speedo to a speedo shop and have them recalibrate it to the metric scale numbers, but to read that scale in MPH instead of KPH. All they have to do is reset the magnetism level in the speed cup magnet. Then, make an appropriate label to state which scale to read the speed on (just for good measure). The odometer will still read the same mileage as before.<P>Enjoy!<BR>NTX5467
-
The radiator I referred to is what AC-Delco calls "upgrade" radiatiors that are drop-in replacements for the previous all copper radiators but are of the more efficient (and about 1/2 the weight) composite radiators as the new vehicles use. A high efficiency aluminum core with the composite side tanks.<P>Griffin is sort of an industry icon, but the price seems a little too high to me in many cases. Not to say they aren't worth it or that they are not a quality product by any means, though.<P>NTX5467
-
I believe this show has been there for several years now. I rather suspect the residents at that facility are very appreciative of having a Buick show there as it probably brings back some very nice memories of their earlier lives and the Buicks that were most probably a part of them in one way or another. Probably a very much more receptive audience (residents and their offspring) than you'd get at other places.<P>Key thing is that vintage Buicks are used to enrich the lives of others and make us feel good about doing it at the same time.<P>Have a great week!<BR>NTX5467
-
Jeremy:<P>My congratulations you venturing off into this group in search of your answers. I hope you can put some meaning to many of these comments and how they relate to current times.<P>Many younger marketing people have lost sight of -- or even comprehend --the original divisional model progression which Billy Durant set up as General Motors. Chevy at the bottom and Cadillac at the top, making it Chevy - Pontiac - Olds - Buick - Cadillac, in that order. The more expensive cars, naturally, will have the higher age and income demographics than the less expensive cars. Each car line had it's target market (relating to "position in live" and resulting income--or where you wanted to be, as in "aspirational"). Therefore, Buick and Cadillac never really were "20-something" cars.<P>When Buick ousted Plymouth for #3 in sales in the 1950s, it was with the base line Special and GMAC financing. Many aspiring professional people bought Buicks because of what the perception of Buick owners were in those earlier times -- successful, stable, reliable, and had style. Whether it was a Special or Roadmaster, it was still a BUICK. Many people take the "Doctor's Car" or "Banker's car" titles with disdain, but fail to understand the earlier social situations of those earlier times when doctors still made housecalls and the banker wanted something classy with good resale value. Boring people of their time? Probably so. Plus usually over 40 years old too.<P>In those earlier years, each division was its own business unit--something the GM Accountants took away in the 1970s and later. That meant each division had their own engine families and shared very little with other divisions (other than the Chevy inline 6-cylinder in many cases). If it said BUICK on the hood, you could bet the engine and transmission (in the earlier years) was made by BUICK as was most everything else in a plant operated by BUICK, advertised by BUICK people and sold by, typically, BUICK-specific dealers. Do you see the progression here?<P>When the advertising said "Wouldn't you really have a BUICK?" you got a real, complete BUICK. Plus a higher status level too.<P>In their desire to maintain paying quarterly dividends, the accountants and management (sometimes of the same orientation, especially in later years) sought to keep paying dividends to keep the stock prices high--a valid issue. They also sought to downsize the organization due to what might be called their lack of management skills in a diverse environment. Remember FrigidAire, GMC heavy trucks, etc.? If any product in the USA was produced, there was a very high chance it would be touched by some divisino of GM from the time it left the farm until the consumer consumed it. Not any more!<P>It's always much easier to show profits by cutting costs and content than to produce great products that sell well and are desireable. Lutz know both sides of that coin and was a key player in what Chrysler did in the 1970s. You can read his book "GUTS" to see how he'll probably reshape GM--if he can in only 3 yrs.<P>Much of what we see in GM today is the result of what happened in the 1980s. Olds money went to Cadillac to help it then and it happened again. First, the Quad8 300 horsepower motor was killed as NorthStar emerged a few years later. Now, Olds is dead so Cadillac can again breathe--but that scenario has been orchestrated for many years too.<P>GM has no problems spending massive amounts of development money where they can get a return on it, as in their light truck products, and did not spend anything where there was no return (i.e., Olds, Camaro/Firebird). Let's see, the trucks sell well, but the cars dont? Where's that message!??<P>Buick needs a full line of models as it had in the 1960s, from the entry level to the top. GM has these models yet has, for some reason, chose not to let Buick have for some reason. Yet, in spite of these things, the demographics of the Buick owner are basically the same as in the earlier times.<P>It would be nice to have a compact entry as the Special used to be to snag young people intially, for sure. The Regal's a good product that has been underpromoted. The LeSabre is still the great product it's been of late. The Park Avenue has great engineering and features, but will soon have a replacement. Rendezvous? A necessity, but needs the 3800 V-6, especially with all of those extra seats and what they'll haul.<P>Products really aren't that bad now, just need some tweaking and a smaller performance model (3800 supercharged Alero-type car?).<P>Forget the Bengal, LONG LIVE BLACKHAWK!<P>Enjoy!<BR>NTX5467
-
I remember seeing the blurb about the FBI deal in Motor Trend (I don't recall seeing the same thing in C&D or R&T, though), seems like it was along about '85 or so. I was thinking they were really GNXs, but they only got about 50-100 or so of them--could have been regular T-types though.I was thinking they were black too, but could be mistaken. Considering they were chasing Ferarris and such in that high stakes drug dealer game, they could have justified the GNX instead of a regular T-type.<P>There was not a regular article on it, just a mention in the "News" area where they talked about the latest car things in the front pages of the magazine. There was a picture of a black GN there with it too, but nothing really special to call attention to it.<P>In the top speed limit on the regular T-types, you have to consider that the Buick could not out-top-end the Corvette (a "hierarchy" issue inside GM). Plus, if the "typical Buick owner" didn't spring for the speed rated tires at replacement time, there could be liability issues, hence regular Eagle GTs instead of the speed rated Eagle GTs. A couple of orientations there. The performance enthusiast Buick owner would know (hopefully) that speed rated tires were a necessary thing.<P>Roberta, you reckon Terry Dunham could dig any of that stuff up?<P>Enjoy!<BR>NTX5467<p>[ 03-31-2002: Message edited by: NTX5467 ]
-
Back to the electronic ignition conversion issue . . .<P>Considering that many aftermarket electronic ignition conversion kits (typically capacitive discharge units, if I recall correctly, some which still used the points to make/break the circuit too) were available in the early 1960s and that GM also had a similar AC-Delco system optional on may Chevrolet, Pontiac, and maybe even Oldsmobile motors in the approx. '64-'69 time frame, plus the precursor to the HEI on 1972 Pontiacs, just why did these systems NOT receive universal praise from the high performance contingency back then? Any of y'all remember those things?<P>As things progressed into the early 1970s, there were many name brand electronic conversion kits that seemed to mimick the later 1971+ Chrysler systems PLUS all of the other previous systems. If point ignition systems were really as bad as y'all talk about, those things should have been on every hot rodder's engine--but they weren't.<P>Back then, high performance distributors from Ford, Chrysler, and some earlier GM applications typically had dual points for approx. 40 degrees of dwell and a hotter spark, while GM stayed with their single point distributor at 30 degrees of dwell. One test was with a dual point Corvette distributor and the other one was with the single point Chevy distributor--not the significan difference that would have been suspected all the way to 7000rpm.<P>One key thing here--the distributors were new and in good condition. This was back when the "trick" magnetic suppression wires had just come out and point gaps were still .035" for most everything. Or hard core people still used "wire" wires.<P>If the higher rpm power increases that have been mentioned were happening back then, there would have been articles in every car magazine extolling the benefits of electronic ignition, but such things were not that common. There typically were mixed results in many cases (except in the J. C. Whitney catalog where everything caused a massive power increase).<P>At those earlier points in time, it was common to do tune ups about every 12,000 miles or more. The ignition points (when properly gapped and the rubbing blocks lubed) typically had "metal transfer" or "pitting" issues than anything else. There were some HD point sets with heavier springs for higher rpm capability too. Everyone typically knew how to replace points and the GM setup was dreadfully easy to do with their external adjustments.<P>One thing I remember seeing in a Hayes Ignition brochure mentioned that all electronic systems typically retarded the spark about 1 degree/1000rpm compared to a similar point system. This was due to the switching transistor, it mentioned.<P>Another thing that surfaced with the Chrysler electronic systems was the minimum voltage requirements to even fire the system. The Orange box was notorious for needing a solid 11 volts to work whereas the MSD box only took about 5.5 volts. I've seen instances where the starter would certainly spin fast enough, but the engine would not start without a boost (with the Orange box).<P>The Mallory UniLite conversion kit came out in the early 1970s. The main thrust with it and the other factory electronic ignition systems were maintenance issues rather than higher peak horsepower -- but then Nitrous wasn't used for non-medicinal purposes back then either. But compression ratios certainly were above 11.0 to one in many cases. And hard core drag racers (and some street guys too) used the venerable magneto.<P>With all of that history, it sounds to me like the ones that are trashing the point ignitons could well be using distributors with worn contact lobes and bushings instead of distributors with good guts. I've seen some cases where a weak battery on a point system car will start the car that would not start if it'd had an electronic system of stock configuration.<P>I know from experience that point grease was deleted from many replacement point sets in the 1980s. This would well explain decreased life from the points and such. It seems that if they worked so well for so many years, even at higher rpms, that they could do the same again--if the wear issues are addressed. How many of us drive their vintage vehicles over 10,000 miles/year now anyway?<P>I like electronic ignition as much as anyone (due to the maintenance issues), but I know the point systems were not total "pieces" when they were new and not worn out too. I know there are high performance/high output situations where they are necessary too. But I highly suspect there are many stock applications out there that can still exist just fine with a good point distributor.<P>With respect to the HEI, the higher rpm output dropoff was documented from its earlier times. It was also mentioned that an MSD system with an HEI was the optimum system. Now, there are newer versions of that deal that work well past the 4500rpm dropoff. <P>The HEI was designed to fire a .100" gap plug, but the condition of the wires got critical about the .070" gap range. The larger gaps were necessary on many emission controlled engines too. Naturally, there was mention of the more accurate firing of the electronic ignition systems, but Dr. Jacobs mentioned several years ago that even the factory elecronic systems did not fire every plug each time it was supposed to--but his would. <P>I, too, would feel safer with an HEI conversion instead of an aftermarket conversion due to the parts availability thing out in the boondocks. The larger cap mimized misfire under high output conditions too. Plus, it's production based.<P>I know the Pertronix kits maintain a factory look, but the HEI is probably the best option from what I've seen.<P>Just my thoughts and I respect yours too.<P>Enjoy!<BR>NTX5467
-
I highly suspect you'll find it runs through the ECM and is not wired separately as in the earlier years.<P>NTX5467
-
Key thing--that '85 LeSabre probably has the Olds 307 (5 Liter) V-8 and not a genuine Buick V-8. <P>I concur that the timing needs to be set to factory specs using the approved factory procedure to set the BASE TIMING so the computer can do the rest.<P>Sounds like a case of "lean misfire" from the newly advanced timing there. Advancing the timing will effectively lean the mixture, which when it gets too lean that the computer can't compensate for, will be too lean to fire (hence, lean misfire) that will probably tell the computer it's too rich from the unburned fuel (even though it was too lean to start with). With the rich code in the computer, it's still trying to lean it further and you see where that's leading.<P>Low backpressure exhaust systems typically don't affect idle issues at all as there typically isn't enough back pressure at low speeds to affect anything anyway. High performanc exhausts on a 2bbl probably help only marginally as the smaller Rochester 2bbls only flow about 250-275cfm, with the larger 1.69 versions hitting closer to 450-500cfm. In many cases, the larger Rochester 2bbls "drove" as well as most of the Q-Jet motors did (but without the "secondary sound"). On the larger ones, it might be beneficial to go up a jet size or so, but nothing serious. Drilling jets is a "no-no" according to Holley, although that was a given practice in the '50s and '60s. You can still buy new jets from GM in many cases. Check out the HP Books book on Rochester carbs as it tells how to retune 2bbls too.<P>Enjoy!<BR>NTX5467
-
AC-Delco has some updated composite radiators for several vehicles. The one I got for my '77 Camaro is a drop is replacement for the much heavier 3-core Modine that was in it. Only had to carefully modify the trans cooler lines for the larger in-tank trans cooler. Works great and comes with the hose adapters and everything for a drop in replacement. At the time, I could sell them (the ones to fit 2nd gen Camaros) for $150.00 and make a reasonable profit, but they might be a little higher now. Check the AC-Delco website.<P>Griffin is a good product, for sure, but they can be a little pricey sometimes. <P>Enjoy!<BR>NTX5467
-
Borg Warner used to catalog many of the older divorced choke thermostats after GM discontinued them. Those thermostate typically were very durable, but the springs could get a little tighter with time. When that happens, you might slightly bend the linkage a little longer to compensate. Don't forget to check the vacuum pull-off for correct operation too.<P>I concur that NAPA would be a good place to start.<P>Enjoy!<BR>NTX5467
-
There is an excellent book on Rochester carbs published by HP Books. Not only does it mention most of the more recent carbs, but it goes into EXTREME detail on Q-Jets -- how they work, how to tune them with different rods, springs, jets, etc. AND specs on all of the various metering rods (primary and secondary), secondary metering rods, and the hangers. You might have to get into a GM/Buick parts book to find the jet, metering rod, power piston spring part numbers to cross them against the list in the carb book.<P>In the tuning section, it tells how to optimize the primary side and then vary the secondary side to compliment that.<P>As for the secondary hangers, that's more of a phasing issue than anything just as a weaker power valve spring would be for the primary side. I believe there's only one hanger available for service replacement, if I recall correctly.<P>Also make sure the plastic cam that runs the secondary hanger is in good shape. That "secondary cam kit" is not listed in all of the respective GM carline parts books, but I believe it is in the Cadillac listings and a few others only as the other ones just don't admit it exists at all.<P>If you desire to alter the calibrations, you might find a combination for a vehicle that seemed to run better in earlier times (i.e., 1970 or similar, for example) for your similar size engine, then duplicate it in your carb (rods, jets, power piston spring). You might get some driveability gains and maybe a little better fuel economy as a result of not having to throttle into it as much for a given power setting, but don't expect any "magic bullet" situation by any means either.<P>Once you get the carb dialed in, then also check out the distributor advance specs too. I suspect the existing carb might be closer than you suspect, but that the distributor could need a quicker vacuum and mechanical advance curve (but not the "hot rod" orientation of "all in by 2000rpm" by any means). Not all vacuum advance units have the same advance in them or come in at the same time.<P>For the distributor advance issues, you might need to get a timing light that has the advance knob on it. There are typically not any distributor machines around any more that you could check the advance curves on -- as in the old days. Therefore, it's all going to have to be checked on the car.<P>The combination or a little quicker advance curve and a complimentary slight carb recalibration could be of benefit in the way the car drives and responds. A working knowledge of how the particular emissions system on your vehicle could help too--but don't just rip everything out either.<P>Happy project!<BR>NTX5467
-
Thanks for that information, Roberta! Now we know where to look specifically.<P>NTX5467
-
When you read that particular service bulletin, it mentioned "magnetic impulses" as the cause of the noise. How magnetism can affect aluminum and pot metal is not really clear to me, but those guys up north have more delicate test equipment for such things.<P>When I saw that 2 o-ring adapter to replace the single o-ring adapter, it made me wonder if it was more of a noise transfer issue if the adapter might get a little cocked in the tube. The 2 o-ring adapter would better stabilize the adapter in the tube to interrupt the metallic noise transfer path--just as putting a section of rubber hose in the middle of the existing pipes (if they are indeed metal pipes). You could also try putting a rubber o-ring under the mounting bolt that secures the adapter in the housing to interrupt that particular metallic transfer path.<P>It could also be that that whole affair sets up a resonance in the system that happens to be "sympathetic" to the way something inside the a/c module is mounted or not mounted securely enough. But that's another theory. The Camaro/Firebird uses the same front engine configuration as the FWD Buicks and such do, but the hose set is different. I haven't heard any complaints of similar problems with those cars or seen any related bulletins.<P>The AC-Delco things which we can get are "Remanufactured" and not "Rebuilt" -- there is a difference in orientation there. About the only alernators and starters that I've seen with a "new" listing are for the "imported" vehicles--and to the tune of about $700+ in many cases. <P>There are cases where they do put new parts in the AC-Delco Reman boxes. The gear reduction starter for the 4.3L V-6 was a notable case, for example. The starter was just introduced and I got one immediately from a vendor, way too early for them to have been any cores to rebuild, for sure. Many times, it seemed they just reused the case and put all new guts inside it.<P>"Reman" typically means that all components are checked to OEM specs whereas "Rebuilt" can mean something much less.<P>Have a great week!<BR>NTX5467
-
Regardless of the outer case, the basic guts of the GM800 gearbox (if that's what's on your Skylark, as I suspect it is) will interchange in "matched sets" of gears. You can have "slow ratio" (about 3.5-4.0 turns lock to lock), fast ratio/straight ratio (about 2 turns lock to lock), or variable ratio (about 2.5-3 turns lock to lock). Many variations in gears and also in torsion bars to determine the "stiffness" or "feel" of the steering. Boost levels are determined by the size of the orifice in the back of the pump (where the pressure line hooks on), but you generally don't mess with that.<P>There can be some variations in output shaft size, input shaft coupling connections with the various years and applications, but there is still a bunch of gear combinations available. You might also check some of the high performance suspension sites for rebuilt boxes for your car that have the fast ratio guts also.<P>You might also contact a local rebuilder of gearboxes for more information on these things. The circle dirt track people use the same GM800 box in their stuff and have a complete variety of gear combinations.<P>Don't forget the complimentary sway bar upgrades too!<P>Hope this helps,<BR>NTX5467
-
You didn't mention "when" it pops. If it's at a steady speed under load it could be one thing. If it's when you suddenly open the throttle, it's another thing.<P>My gut suspicion is that it's happening under acceleration, probably heavy acceleration or suddenly nailing the throttle out of gear. In that case, it could be a lean mixture issue--either in the base calibration or in the accelerator pump not supplying an adequate "shot" of gas. On the earlier Rochester, it could be a power valve not opening soon enough to enrich the mixture under load. If you bought one of the newer Edlebrock "AFB" carbs, there should have been a "book" with it on how to tune it, including troubleshooting. If you didn't, you can find that on their website, I believe.<P>Your older Rochester was "vehicle/application" specific whereas the Edlebrock is much more universal in nature and calibration. The basic jet/metering rod/power piston spring combination might work well for a Chevrolet application but might not be set up as well for a Buick application. In any event, some fine tuning could be in order.<P>What about manifold vacuum at base idle and fast idle? Have you tried advancing the timing above where you have it set? If you advance the timing about "one plug wire's worth" on the cap (by twisting the distributor) and things get "normal", then you could well have gotten the timing off one notch when you changed the timing chain--it's easier to do than you think.<P>It might also be that the harmonic balancer has "moved". You can probably compare where the crankshaft keyway is in comparison to the timing mark as a double check on that issue.<P>When you put things back together, obviously you had the coil "+" and "-" leads unhooked? You might double check to make sure the polarity on those leads is correct as lower ignition output will result.<P>Has the point dwell setting changed during this process? Make sure that anytime you replace the points that you put the approved point grease on the point rubbing block and on the point cam. Without that grease, the rubbing block will wear prematurely and the point gap/dwell will similarly change. Mallory used to sell the point grease and GM still has it in their Standard Parts Catalog.<P>I doubt there's anything "inside" the motor that will be causing problems, other than the possibility of the timing being "one notch off". For now, focus on carburetion and make sure the ignition is "correct" also. Basically, make sure everything's as it needs to be. Is there anything else that might be pertinent to this situation?<P>Hope this helps.<P>NTX5467
-
If you didn't check with the CARB or DMV regarding "earlier engines in later model chassis" vehicles, you probably should have. To do a port injection on a Buick engine will require many things which will probably need to be sourced from the aftermarket fuel injection people and will not be cheap. <P>The easiest thing would be to put a Holley 4bbl TBI setup on it, then add the bungs to the lead pipes (below the exhaust manifold flange) to mount the two oxygen sensors (Holley has an extra add-on kit to make the system a "feedback loop" as the factory systems are, but not at full throttle, which you'll have to tune the free-standing computer for yourself). Of course, two approved converters (each sized to about 250 cubic inch motors, but with the 2.5" or so pipe size to match the lead pipes--each converter will see 1/2 of the engine displacement, hence the 250 CID size converters) will need to be in place, hopefully in the stock location and with appropriate heat shielding. With the Holley system, you can use a regular intake manifold to suit your purposes.<P>Edlebrock has a port injection system for Chevrolet and other motors that could be adapted to your Buick engine. You can check that out at their website <A HREF="http://www.edlebrock.com" TARGET=_blank>www.edlebrock.com</A> and you can check out the Holley stuff at their <A HREF="http://www.holley.com" TARGET=_blank>www.holley.com</A> website.<P>Or you could get someone like Rance Fuel Injection to custom build you a set up. Just depends on what you want to pay for (the options listed from least expensive to most expensive).<P>Several years ago, Hot Rod magazine focused on the engine/chassis issue. If an inspection station "challenges" your vehicle, then you have to get it tested to verify compliance. As this is not a production-based system you'll be dealing with, you'll probably have to get it tested at an approved test station before it'll be "road legal".<P>This does sound like a very interesting swap, though. I wish you luck and will be curious how it all lays out.<P>Have you also done similar "beef-ups" for the transmission and related power train components too?<P>Roberta ("Buick Racer" and forum moderator) might be able to get you some "inside" information on the specifics of the Blackhawk system. Key thing is to consider all of your options and how they fit your wallet.<P>Enjoy!<BR>NTX5467
-
I found the GM Service Bulletin in the regular Bulletin listing in our parts database. I didn't remember the exact year, so I just browsed several years until I found it.<P>File Section 6 -- Engine/Propulsion System<BR>Bulletin Nbr ---- 99-06-09-005A<BR> (Replaces previous bulletin<BR> 99-09-99-005)<BR>Date ------------ December, 2000<P>Subject: Generator Noise (with descriptions which match your operational complaint as to what the noise is, when it occurs, and where it's heard)<P>The parts replacements for this repair are pretty easy and quick, with the longest labor time being about an hour on 1999 Ultras. The main parts are the adapters which slide into the alternator bracket, the hold-down bolts, and possibly the hose assembly on 1999 Ultras. It's all spelled out in the bulletin.<P>The key difference in the upgraded adapters is 2 O-rings on each adapter instead of one.<P>The bulletin specifies which models are affected: 1999 Riviera<BR> 1999-2001 Park Avenue and <BR> Ultra (with specified VIN breaks)<BR> 2000-2001 LeSabre and Bonneviles<BR> (with specified VIN breaks)<P>I also double checked in the parts database to see if the parts list in there also reflected the upgraded parts (which they typically do). I suspect that GMSPO is working through their existing stock of one of the adapters as one is still the "old" style and the other one is of the "new" style. Therefore, the Service Bulletin parts list is what should be used to repair this operational complaint.<P>I also checked with ParTech to check stock and availability. The two part number of adapters are in stock in the Fort Worth parts warehouse, the bolts are "source shipped" and in stock at the vendor, and the hose set for the 1999 Park Avenue/Ultra vehicles is in the Lansing, MI warehouse. If the adapters are in the FW regional warehouse, they should be similarly nationwide too, as a general rule.<P>As I found this bulletin in our Bell+Howell parts database (in the Parts/Service/Action bulletins section), which are the same bulletins that used to be sent out in print, any Buick dealer's service people should be able to find it in their similar database by the bulletin number I listed above. From there, they can order the necessary parts to repair the vehicle. It might take a week to get them, but they can get them.<P>I also printed a copy of the bulletin from our parts computer.<P>With the particular production breaks in the VIN, all vehicles are not affected as the ones built after the VIN break should have the double O-ring adapter already.<P>I hope this information helps to get your Buick a little quieter. <P>Thanks for the kind words, Dynaflash8. With respect to where the vehicle was purchased, that really should not even enter into the repair situation as it might have in the past. Granted, the dealer should want to take care of their own customers (who they have sold cars to), naturally, but there is an equal or greater need to take care of people who did not buy their cars there as they might want to next time if they're treated "right". Plus, with the pressures from GM to have higher Customer Satisfaction Index scores, where the car was originally bought should not matter one bit. Afterall, there is more money to be made on service work after the vehicle is sold than in any one new car sales transaction. So it's in their best interest to have you return regardless of where the car was bought.<P>When a vehicle that we haven't seen before comes in for the first time, we always do a VISS inquiry to look for outstanding campaigns and such which have not been performed. This printout also lists the selling dealer and all warranty coverage information (including GMPP extended warranties) plus warranty work that was done by which dealer. Why the vehicle was purchased at the other dealer is of no concern.<P>Enjoy!<P>Willis<BR>NTX5467<P>[ 03-29-2002: Message edited by: NTX5467 ]<p>[ 03-29-2002: Message edited by: NTX5467 ]
-
Glad you found the link for the tubing vendor. I hope things work out well for you in that respect and I know how much time you'll save by going that route (instead of manually bending things yourself).<P>Year One used to do rebuilds on fuel tank sending units for about $100.00 + freight and such. I'm not sure if they still do. Borg Warner used to have some universal sending units too.<P>In some cases, the aftermarket offered replacement floats (the brass ones that fit into a loop of sorts on the float lever arm). The other issue would be the strainer on the end of the pickup tube and the condition of the carbon resistor mechanism at the top of the sending unit.<P>For some of the later GM light trucks, they now service a level sensor as a separate part of the fuel pump module. It's basically the float and arm with the variable resistor at the top, plus the electrical socket to plug into the wiring. It might be possible to adapt that to an existing tank unit to replace an bad part. I don't know how the resistance value of the new part would interface with the earlier part, but suspect an inline resistor of the correct value might be needed to generate acceptable values for the older gauges to deal with. At least the theory would work . . .<P>Even if the earlier production sending units initially had robust materials and such, the years of condensation and such in the tanks could well reduce the metal gauge to much less than it originally was. Even if the newer replacements are flimsier, they might still be better than an older one that the corrosion has eaten away at.<P>Just some thoughts . . .<P>NTX5467
-
Until recent history, the age demographics of "typical" owners was not that big of a deal. If you consider the way GM was originally set up, Chevrolet was the "entry level" vehicle to the GM line up and Buick was at the upper end just under Cadillac. As you advanced in your life, you were supposed to have more income and status so you moved from Chevrolet to Pontiac to Olds to Buick and then to Cadillac. Therefore, Chevrolet would have the youngest buyers and Cadillac would have the oldest buyers, age wise.<P>When the compacts came out in 1960, this same set of orientations still existed as they did in 1964 when the intermediates came out. All of these new products also resulted in a lot of price range overlaps which got worse about '65 when a Buick LeSabre could cost the same as a loaded Caprice, but had a more prestigious name and such.<P>Prior to that, the Buick Special was the entry level Buick--but still not something a bunch of teenagers would buy (although they sure did like the way their dad's Buicks would run!) or could afford new. This is a key issue many marketing people seem to have not understood--when you have a luxury car that is "aspirational" to the younger set, they will buy it when they can afford it as their station in life and related earnings increase. That's the way it used to work and work pretty dang well.<P>Just as then, you got them in a Special and they bought a Century or such when they could afford it. Getting them in the door the first time is the key.<P>It seems strange that we have these high paid analysts that say GM has too many products now and needs to knock some more off in the future, but when Toyota or other oriental companies come up with more additional products to the crowded marketplace, it's OK. Go figure that one out!<P>GM needs to do what others have done and forget what the analysts claim and go straight into a mode such that they are in every market segment in a big way with credible products. Not specifically products "sourced" from "partners", but products designed and built in the USA as they all used to be. They need to commit to that orientation and not back away from it! If Ford has a Mustang, Chevy needs a Camaro. If Dodge has a Neon, Chevy needs a credible entry there too! Buick and Cadillac can chase Lexus, Lincoln, and others while Pontiac hits Mitsubishi and such. I'm not going to even mention crossover of truck-based "activity" vehicles. If these necessary investments mean less stock dividends, so be it! As the Chrysler guys proved in the 1990s, great products done the right way lead to greater profits, increased stock prices, and related dividends--you use product to build profits instead of cost cutting actions (which typically do not yield the purported additional profits that were used as justification to do them in the first place). Cutting costs will show up as additional profits on the profit/loss statement well before profits from increased sales will, so that's where everyone heads first as it's the easiest thing to do and look like they did something beneficial.<P>Even in the early 1990s, the demographics of the typical Buick Skylark owner was something like 35-40 years old while the Park Avenue owner was "retired age". So, if you look at how GM was originally configured, Buicks and Cadillacs were not something the typical 20-something bought or could afford new. The addition of the less expensive compacts and intermediates helped lower the age demographics back then and they can again--if GM will only put a full line of credible vehicles in each sales division again as there was in the 1960s and 1970s, but then the analysts would carp about too much expense in overlapping vehicles and too many vehicles too. And those analysts "make the big bucks" . . .<P>Sorry if this sounds a little like Jerry F. as that was not intended . . .<P>Thanks,<BR>NTX5467
-
Whether a particular dealership service manager or technician is aware of any information on your complaint, they can go into their GM internet-based service information system and check for bulletins and such on your complaint. This information system is completely current instead of waiting for bulletins to be printed and distributed (as in prior times). Plus, it will have information that is not covered in the regular bulletins in some cases.<P>Getting the dealership service people to contact GM Tech Assistance in the first place might meet with mixed orientations. Sometimes, it takes a good bit of "hold time" to get a human on the other end of the line to talk to. Basically a time priority issue at the dealership level--one that is sometimes understandable too. In any event, getting a case opened for your complaint is a start. Sometimes, Tech Assistance can expedite repair parts to the service dept that are not yet avaiable (or even admitted to) from the normal GM Parts sources.<P>As the 3800s used in the Camaro/Firebirds use the same front cover/tensioner configuration as the LeSabres and Regals, not to mention Bonnevilles and Grand Prixs, there could be information for those vehicles too with regards to this same complaint.<P>If the noise transmission path is the heater lines, it would seem to be easy to just cut a section from them and substitute some rubber hose in them--even just for test purposes. Might even need to put a loop of hose in there instead of just a short section to help kill any harmonics, possibly.<P>It's possible that you could have the tech use a stethoscope to check for alternator noise that would be similar to what you're hearing. Or use the "time honored" method of using a solid rod or similar to put your ear to to do the same thing. Always do that safely to prevent injury from moving parts!<P>I'll check to see what I can find out when I go into work Thursday.<P>Enjoy!<BR>NTX5467
are my hubcaps possessed?
in Buick - General
Posted
The culprit is "wheel flex". Some wheels and sizes are more prone to it that others. <P>We have a '66 Chrysler with 14x5.5" steel wheels. After the vehicle aged, the right hand front wheel cover would rotate, but those earlier wheels had little bumps on the rim and similar tangs on the wheel cover near the valve stem to stop the rotation of the wheel cover. After watching this situation for some time, my fix was to remove the valve stem extension, position the cover with the stem hole away from the valve stem hole, and reinstall. None of the other wheels had that happen to them. It was no problem to pop the wheel cover off to check the air pressure (which had no problems loosing air anyway). I also tried bending the tangs and all of that to no avail.<P>The problem existed with either bias ply tires or bias-belted tires. I have a similar '67 Chrysler and have had no problems in that area on that car.<P>Enjoy!<BR>NTX5467