NTX5467

The serpentine belts are not designed to stretch--period. Adding heat from the dryer would be no different than engine heat, provided it didn't catch fire in there. If it would stretch any at all, it could well fly off after installation--as some lesser quality belts have been known to do.<P>Many installation problems are from not routing the belt correctly. With the correct GM belt, it should be an easy thing to do. Many aftermarket belts, including Gates, do make replacement belts that are of a different length than the OEM GM belts they are listed to replace.<P>My guess is that if you have the tensioner fully flexed and it still does not fit, then you might have the incorrect belt--regardless of where it was purchased from. There should be some index marks on the tensioner with respect to its travel. Is the tensioner still in good shape?<P>Anytime you replace a serpentine belt, take the old one (or the remains thereof) to compare to the new one (with respect to length). This way, you can determine if it's the one you need before you try to install it.<P>Email me direct if you have any other problems in this regard.<P>NTX5467

Those earlier VINs did not include any information on brake systems as the newer VINs do. The "ideal" situation would be to find a factory GM service manual and then head to an earlier version of the GM paper parts book. <P>The current GM parts databases do not go back that far, but the GM/Delco/DuraStop Brake parts book does in many cases. Might be a situation where an old paper parts book at the auto supply would be needed--plus someone who knows how to read it (or cares to learn). <P>I suspect that the issues will related to drum diameter and such (you can get an idea from the "max diameter" spec cast into the drum) or whether or not it has disc brakes. When looking in an old Chilton crash parts book I have, it mentioned regular, VistaCruiser, and the "C rear axle in the rear suspension/brake section. I suspect the factory service manual would answer your concerns. I do have access to a 1975 and prior Olds parts book at work, but will not be back there until the 26th.<P>What are your concerns or are you trying to find out? Email me direct if you desire.<P>NTX5467

Back in those early "smog" days of the '70s, there was a manual out with detailed instructions on how to "retune" engines to regain the earlier power and economy. When this routine was performed on several '72 Cutlass 350 Q-Jet motors, they regularly and consistently did 20+ mpg on the highway and ran beautifully.<P>There are many other fuel system calibration points in the Q-Jet (or any other carburetor for that matter) than just jet/rod size interactions and considerations. All of those little air bleeds in the circuits are calibration points also. It's how all of these things interact that result in the economy and driveability we experience.<P>Then, look at manifold design considerations too. Plus cylinder head flow and combustion dynamics consisderations. Then, bore, stroke, and connecting rod length come into play with respect to the manifold/cylinde head flow issues.<P>Other than aerodynamics issues, from my observations the Olds engines of the early '70s were much better in fuel economy than their other GM cousins. Everything seemed to work together.<P>As underpowered as the 307 might have been in the wagons, I heard many reports of 25+mpg on the highway in the full size and mid size sedans they were used in when the Chevy 305 did good to get 20mpg--way back in the 1970s and 1980s.<P>As I recall reading, there were some particular air flow rates when the Q-Jet was super-efficient at metering fuel with it's triple-booster primary venturis. Meaning, it was much better at atomizing the fuel, which put more emphasis on manifold design to make things work better together. Perhaps Olds could or did spend more on refinement than the other GM divisions could at that time?<P>Jets, metering rods, power piston spring calibration, and such are only part of the story.<P>Enjoy!<BR>NTX5467

When you find the blower control module in the a/c case under the hood, when you remove it you will find an aluminum heat sink with a circuit board on one side of it. It will probably be a dealer-only item and be in the $100.00 range. It's easy to change and such. I concur that that's probably where your problem with the blower motor is, provided the motor itself has not failed.<P>Enjoy!<BR>NTX5467

When we were at the last BCA National Meet in Flint, Holden had just "approved" the use of the balance shaft 3.8L Buick V-6 (i.e., "3800") engine for use in its vehicles at that time. The people at BOC Powertrain gleefully announced that on the tour of the facility we took (as part of the BCA meet activitive). They talked about that like it was a really big deal as Holden (which I suspect was something of a renegade GM division down there at that time) was using Nissan 6 cylinder engines prior to that. A GM engine replacing a Japanese origin engine was considered to be a really big deal for BOC Powertrain, especially in the late '80s.<P>What initiated that activity might be open to debate. Whether it was cost issues could be an issue too. Holden uses the "EcoTec" nomenclature on the 3800 but GMPowered only uses that on the new 2.2L 4 cyl motor.<P>With regard to further "trashing" if existing GM vehicles and engines, check out the CAR AND DRIVER article on "family cars". It's obvious to me that they tend to look at the world through "Honda colored" glasses.<P>While the Regal LS came in way under their budget limit, they failed to include the suspension upgrade or the Monsoon radio in the mix. They trashed the 2.7L Intrepid for low power yet had no problem dealing with the 240 horse Nissan. Kind of looked to me like the deck was initially stacked toward the import brands. As much time was spent praising the import brands as was spent trashing the Americans for lower power, less handling, etc. <P>Bottom line is that any of those cars will make a great family car. More car for less price has always been one of my orientations, plus the easy powertrain reliability, maintenance, and economy of operation of the GM cars -- after the fact -- did not figure into their orientation of "newer is best".<P>Would it be possible that someone closer to the 3800 development could elaborate on the Holden situation? That might even make a great article for "The Bugle"!<P>Enjoy!<BR>NTX5467

When GM standardized the powertrain in the LeSabre/Park Avenue cars (and their related H/C platform cars), that's when great things started happening in that area. They did widely publicize how well they did in that area back then. Remember the "Sweating The Details" advertising?<P>It's a "no brainer" to walk the lots of new car dealers and see EPA highway ratings of 29+ on the pushrod Buick 3800 (non-supercharged) and Chevy 3.1/3.4 engines--regardless of which car they are installed in. Then, in the same size vehicle built by an import brand, do the same and it's very clear that GM's pushrod engines are pretty dang good as they are. Then check out what Ford has . . .<P>One reason the supercharged 3800 has lower highway EPA ratings is probably due to the more performance oriented axle ratio it has.<P>In my somewhat numerous rent car experiences, the current Chrysler 3.5L is also very good on real world fuel economy and performance. Typically returning 30-31mpg on the instant fuel economy readout on a flat road with no winds and the cruise control set at 60mph, then dropping to 28mpg at 85mph.<P>One graphic example of real world fuel economy being affected by the vehicle aerodynamics is the Chrysler LH cars. With the first generation 3.5L V-6, the best I could get from an LHS was 26mpg on trips, but a similar Concorde would do 27.5mpg due to its slicker aerodynamics. Add the 10% improvement from the new/current 3.5L and it results in the figures I've observed in those cars.<P>I have noticed that the Intrigue 3.5L V-6 has had steadily improving EPA highway mileage. Intially at something like 26mpg and now at 30mpg. Refinement or initial hedging--not sure. I read that that engine was supposed to be in the next gen midsize cars, even supercharged, but was cut. When checking further, at least in the Goodwrench engine pricing at the dealership level, that basic engine costs something like $700.00 more than a similar Buick 3800. No wonder it was killed and the Buick will live.<P>One other indicator of how efficient the Buick 3800 is came about with the Camaros several years ago. The Chevy V-6 would not pass California emissions but the Buick 3800 did, plus offering a nice performance boost too.<P>I've read Mr. Egan's previous comments about his Buick. I highly suspect they are typical as it appears he takes no unusually special care of it (other than regular maintenance). No doubt, his somewhat aloof import enthusiasts will question his commentaries on the Buick with it's "aged" motor design.<P>Back when everyone was jumping on the multi-valve/ohc band wagon, Buick resisted. One magazine article questioned that stance. The reply was that for Buick owners, acceleration stopped after they got across the intersection.<P>Looking at that, it sounds like there is no orientation toward 6000rpm power as the ohc designs offer. BUT, such lower speed acceleration needs great low rpm torque response to make that inital, possibly tire squalling, jump. These same people also fail to understand that this same lower rpm range is where highway cruise rpm takes place too.<P>Granted, there are some great ohc multi-valve engines on the market today. This is considered to be "high tech" or "current tech" with anything older being out dated and such.<P>Recently, in the Detroit News Auto Insider website, or a link from it, there was an interview with the GMPowertrain guy. He mentioned the new family of V-6 motors they are now working on. One engine family to support "high value" (i.e., pushrod) plus the "sexy" ohc/multi-valve variations needed for certain market segments.<P>Letting the "word of mouth" advertising speak for the attributes of the Buick 3800 V-6 instead of doing some active advertising in that area probably could relate to its eventual replacement in the future. You don't go out and make people want something that they can't buy or is considered outmoded, typically.<P>If you go into the GMPowered website, which replaced the GMPowertrain website (accessed from <A HREF="http://www.gm.com" TARGET=_blank>www.gm.com</A> and an upper pull down menu), they ballyhoo engines which are "current" on the front page--the EcoTec, the Vortec, NorthStar, and such. If you click on "Other" you will find the Buick 3800 and the Chevy 3.1/3.4 motors. Kind of like they don't want to admit to the engines they inherited in the earlier days?? Naturally, the Quad OHC version of the previous Olds Quad4 is not called an Oldsmobile engine either.<P>Those of us that appreciate the Buick engines for what they are have probably been a little to quiet about these things. Maybe we need to get the Grand Prix people (where all of the performance parts for the fwd 3800s typically exist) need to help in this venture also?<P>I suspect that it's totally incomprehensible for the current generations to understand that the current 3800 Buick V-6 has its roots in a design fathered in the later 1950s! Refined and enhanced over the years, first as a bottom line economy motor and now as an efficient performance motor in modern times. Plus that the current version has efficiently powered (saving a whole bunch of fuel in the process) so many day-to-day vehicles that the numbers would fall off the end of their calculators.<P>Enjoy!<BR>NTX5467

I believe if you look in the Goodmark catalog, you'll find new repro (GM approved) deck lids in prime. Same lid as the Monte Carlo, as mentioned. As I recall,the price in Goodmark is good too and might be better than what you'd spend in time and money in getting a used one.<P>Enjoy!<BR>NTX5467

From a performance standpoint, there's nothing wrong with that existing alternator at all. It's a proven design and tends to be much more durable than some of the newer GM alternators that seem to have problems every 35000 miles or so on some applications. Plus, you should be able to buy rebuild parts for it too. Much better to find a tool to adjust the belt!<P>From my hands-on experience with the 5.7L Olds diesels in Chevy pickups, the pumps and such are the main trouble problem areas. The boots on the return lines can cause problems too, due to age and such. It might be possible to get a diesel shop to build some lines without the boots.<P>On your "how many" engine?? Key thing is to use a oil with the correct diesel rating on it and change it as specified. Plus add a water separator to the fuel system, something GM refuesed to do from the factory.<P>One key difference that caused many problems is that the 5.7L Olds diesel was a "light duty" diesel and not a "heavy duty" diesel as you would find in over-the-road diesel trucks. Key distinction. That's why the earlier ones were not rated for trailer towing applications.<P>There were many differences in the diesels over the years. Different pistons in the different car lines for noise concerns, for example, plus the well documented cylinder head applications for each model year. Plus specific pump calibrations.<P>Those Olds gasoline motors back then had one of the strongest bottom ends in the business and the crankshafts were from the meanest Olds 455s that ever lived, so there was definitely some beef down there to start with. The "wimpy" ones were the 260cid diesels in the Cutlasses, but they tended to run better and longer than the 350s for some reason.<P>There obviously were some quality issues in the assembly of these motors at the factory level. I drove our parts trucks as hard as they'd go and never broke anything in 70,000+ miles, but little old ladies broke crankshafts on the way to the grocery store. So, don't blame your "how many" motors on the design, but on the rebuilder and their employees expertise.<P>In prior times, the factory authorized GM reman 5.7L diesels came from A.E.R. manufacturing. A.E.R. is the Ford Authorized engine rebuilder and also does many of the current AC-Delco reman engines.<P>Once you learned to drive, operate, and understand the different characteristics of those 5.7L diesels, they are really good engines if you take care of them.<P>Email me direct if you have any other questions or concerns.<P>As for the moldings and such, some are still available (i.e., bumper fillers), but you'd better get what you can as soon as you can before GM discontinues them for good.<P>Enjoy!<BR>NTX5467@cs.com

One main issue would be future parts availability and their cost. The idle speed stepper motor is very expensive, or at least was several years ago. It could well have been discontinued by now.<P>It was a good system when new, from what I understand, and was very similar to what was on the Cadillac Eldos and Cosworth Vegas in operation. The design was reasonably solid as such, but the replacement parts issue would be one reason to not try to convert an existing Q-Jet equipped motor to the Bendix injection.<P>If fuel injection is your deal, then check out the Holley digital injection units with their own brain and feedback loop options (i.e., uses and oxygen sensor for all operation other than WOT). You would probably need a regular Olds carburetor intake manifold from the aftermarket as the Holley unit has the same bolt pattern as a 4160 Holley "square bore" carburetor. Parts availability and such should be good for quite some time into the future also.<P>There also might be some other possibilities with some of the fuel injection gurus, like Rance, that could graft a later model injection unit on there--for a price.<P>Enjoy!<BR>NTX5467

I saw another news article on the 18th or 19th that was similar to the one Roberta posted, but it added that if they could not make the production Bengal look significantly like the concept Bengal, then it would be killed. Then cost issues arose and Lutz pulled the plug on it.<P>The way the article sounded, the previous GM guys knew there might be production issues and gently mentioned that to Lutz. That's when he said that if the concept and production Bengals could not be the same, he'd kill the project.<P>The Viper, Prowler, and other Chrysler concept cars were fully production ready and functional vehicles whereas GM typically built concepts that were not that way. Kind of like "We can do this for a show car, but to build it would be another issue altogether." When interest in the Viper, Prowler, and Crossfire were deemed to be significant, the business case for those vehicles was fully explored and things happened.<P>The Bengal looked neat in many ways, but so did the XP2000 several years ago. But, in my opinion, the Bengal was just too wimpy when compared to the Blackhawk.<P>I suspect that with some of the GM Board members that brought their version of brand management to GM and their aid, Mr. Zarella, now gone, I doubt that any more car lines (i.e., divisions) will leave GM. I hope the placement of Buick in the display has no hidden agenda! I tend to concur with Roberta's orientation of what is said will not happen, happening, but I feel there's a strong enough business case for there not to be any more division's being discontinued.<P>By comparison, Buick's mission (especially since the late '80s) has been clear whereas Olds was given a mission that was terribly flawed and a set up for failure, not to mention that terrible advertising for Olds back then! The handwriting's been on the wall regarding Olds for quite some time, it just finally came to pass recently, as ill advised as it might have been. My gut instinct tells me that there very well could have been hidden agendas involved. But that's history . . . . At least Buick's had some neat concept cars that could well be the aspirational vehicles that Buicks always have tended to be.<P>At <A HREF="http://www.detnews.com/autoinsider," TARGET=_blank>www.detnews.com/autoinsider,</A> there was an interesting interview with Mr. Lyons of Buick. Pretty neat. <P>One thing that seems to be on the horizon is the replacement of the Buick 3800 and the Chevy 2.8L engine families in the reasonably distant future. On the GMPowered site, the old GMPowertrain site you can find at <A HREF="http://www.gm.com," TARGET=_blank>www.gm.com,</A> the engine families that GMPowertrain designed are listed prominently, but the Chevy and Buick engines are listed under "Other". It's one thing for GMPowertrain to toot their own horn, but another to put their inherited engines in a corner to hide, so to speak. I believe there was an interview on the AutoInsider site with a GMPowertrain guy that talked about the new V-6 family, if I remember correctly, that might be in the archives of those articles.<P>One good thing about Lutz is that he understands strict cost controls (like the accountants and other financial people that have dominated GM design for so long) plus he fully understands building neat vehicles with the same money that you can build mediocre vehicles with. One interview by the "AutoWeek" magazine editors indicated that his book, "GUTS", will indicate what the culture at GM will be in the future. He should interface well with both sides, accounting and design, to everyone's mutual benefit. <P>Who would have thought that all of those previous Chrysler people that worked at Chrysler during the Lutz era would find themselves working for him again at GM??<P>Enjoy!<BR>NTX5467

Greetings and welcome to the Buick part of the vintage vehicle hobby!<P>The current DEXRON III specification automatic transmission fluid will, according to GM, backdate to 1947 and the first modern-style automatic transmission from HydraMatic. The GM-produced fluid you get at the dealer is the only way you can be sure of that what you get meets the GM standards (as written) in all respects. You can still find Type A fluid in some cases, but it will most likely be an "off brand" fluid of questionable composition.<P>As for the shock oil, you might check with some of the motorcycle shops for "fork oil". Back in the 1980s, a lady brought her Peugot sedan into the dealer that sold her the car when new. She priced struts for it and had severe sticker shock. An alignment shop familiar with those cars knew that you could change the oil in the struts, so he went to the motorcycle shop and got some fork oil of a particular viscosity to put in the struts. The greater the viscosity, the stiffer the ride will be, as he related. If you can determine the viscosity of the existing oil in your shocks (or the GM specification), it might ease your shopping for the correct fork oil. <P>You might check with the BCA tech advisors to see if they have some recommendations also. They are listed on the front page of the BCA website.<P>Otherwise, current lubricants are much superior to what was around when your vehicle was produced. Even today's worst ones are probably better than the premium lubricants of that earlier time.<P>"Happy Motoring!"<BR>NTX5467

One key issue on what colors went where relates to the order of assembly of the body unit. It could be that the whole body shell was dipped in primer as later vehicles were. If that's the case, the underside should be the same color as the primer they used that year. I concur that it could be duplicated in a more modern paint of the correct gloss and such for greater durability and ease of cleaning.<P>The overspray on the underneath from where the fenders and such were painted on the vehicle is also accurate. It might not be the most neat way to do things (as perceived by some) but if that's the way the factory did it, that's the way it needs to go back for correctnes and authenticity. <P>For example, due to the build sequence and related modification sequence for the Dodge Daytona Wing Cars of the late 1960s, there were three levels of overspray on the underside of the vehicle. If they were not there, it is a judging deduction at shows where they looked at those things.<P>Also, as each plant back then was run by the division, the only good gauge to use as to what is correct would be a similar model year Buick from the same plant. Much of what went on could be specific to that particular plant and shift and workers although there was a standardized build manual for the vehicle. <P>To complicate matters further, if there was some shortage of paint from a particular supplier and they had to get something from someone else to keep the line moving, it could have been different still. Not to mention mid-year changes.<P>Perhaps a factory service body repair manual would have some specs on what paint went where in the refinishing sections? Specs with respect to approved manufacturers and their part numbers on the paint.<P>Many times, what people do when restoring their vehicles for show is not what the general public considers to be correct although it is as far as the way the vehicle was built. I've seen tons of high gloss black on GM vehicles where GM never put anytyhing by satin black paint, for example. <P>A lot of that just depends on which target audience you are playing to--the strict "as produced" people or the people who want to see the vehicle as they perceive it should be instead of as it really was back then. I do concur that modern coatings can be used provided they match the original in color, texture, and sheen. Sometimes it just takes some experimentation with available restoration paints to get things like they need to be.<P>Enjoy!<BR>NTX5467

The earlier cruise controls were typically a 2-wire or 3-wire, which typically had something to do with an indicator light or similar. The "resume" cruise did not come out until the early 1980s on GM cars.<P>The cruise on your '85 is an "electronic" cruise, if I remember correctly. It takes the speed reading from the speed cup on the speedometer head as opposed to your previous cruise which had the transducer as part of the speedometer cable path.<P>It might be easier to just adapt the mounting of the existing cruise servo to your older engine and not mess with trying to duplicate the earlier wiring and such. One of the other wires might even go to the vehicle ECM (another issue with the swap).<P>Be sure to check with your local state inspection people to see if the "latest model year" rule applies for such an engine swap (earlier engine in later vehicle). In a worst case scenario, you would have to duplicate all of the later model's emission controls on the earlier engine. Not to mention the things you would have to do with the exhaust system (might not even be able to change the stock configuration to duals even if you run dual converters--which never existed on those chassis vehicles).<P>For the time being, until you resolve some of these "reality" issues, put the engine and trans on the stand and get them spiffed up and such, ready for whatever might come later--even if you have to sell them or find a more suitable vehicle for them.<P>It would make a great swap, no doubt, but if you can't legally register it and drive it on the street (due to the emissions issues) at this time, you've spent a lot of time and money you can't enjoy except on the drag strip (where the durability of the 7.5" rear axle might be another issue).<P>NTX5467

If there aren't any relays in the circuit, then check for a chafed wire which might have grounded out. In some cases, GM has used circuit breakers on those circuits as with the power windows. Could also be something as simple as a bad switch.<P>When the lock and window switches go bad, the "action" on them will feel different than a new one, even though they might still look good and work fine in one mode. Of course, once you get the switch unplugged from the harness, you can jumper the terminals to see they work that way. Of course, knowing which terminals control which function and are the power source would be helpful.<P>Remember, the wiring makes a complete circuit from the switch to the actuator and back and from side to side (typically under the dash). It'll be somewhat tedious to trace the wiring and inspect it, but that might be where you end up. Some of the older actuators might have been single wire internal ground situations, but the later models like you have should be a two wire actuator.<P>Once you get the door panels off, you might put power to the actuators to see if they work like that in both directions. Then you can go from there to check the switches and wiring.<P>NTX5467

In many cases, the wiring runs from the front to the back along the rocker panel area on the inside of the car. Considering the fuse block and such on GM cars are on the driver's side, I believe the main wiring harnesses to the back will be on that side also.<P>If there are any doubts, find a GM factory service manual on the Buick you are working on and check the electrical section for wiring information. Hopefully it will have a general illustration of how they run and then you can follow the individual circuits to see the color codes and such.<P>Enjoy!<BR>NTX5467

From what I remember, all GM vehicles built after April, 1971 are unleaded fuel compatible. The '71 model year is when all of the engines went to 8.5 - 9.0 compression ratio.<P>As for clattering under load, if it's part throttle, you might look for a vac advance with a little less advance (shorter movement of the rod that indexes with the breaker plate (on the mounting arm in it) or just retard the initial timing a little bit each time. That might make the carb idle speed adjustment need a little tweaking.<P>Some of the aftermarket replacement vac advances can be adjusted with an Allen wrench inserted through the tube the carb vac line slides onto. The stiffer the spring is the less advance for a given level of vacuum.<P>Current super unleaded of posted pump octane "93" should get you in the ball park with octane, or at least close enough some octane booster might help without changing the timing. Carbon buildup can also be an issue (for which there are now some good additives to clean that out of the combustion chamber). Different brands of quality fuel might have just enough extra something to help decrease the clatter also.<P>OR, if you're near a drag strip operation, there are unleaded racing fuels of over 100 Research Octane available on a carryout basis. The Turbo Buick guys used to be big users of it. It should have a posted octane of "95" or above by the current methods. They might even sell you a barrel of it, but it might be better to do it in smaller quantities. 5 gallons of the racing unleaded gas with another 15 gallons of 93 octane super unleaded might work well.<P>In any event, it will take some experimentation to find the combination that works for you and your vehicle in an affordable and tolerable manner.<P>Enjoy!<BR>NTX5467

Konga Man's comments are accurate and go along with what I've seen in many other places. <P>The issue with the hoses is a "try it and see" thing. Seasoned hoses on an R12 system allegedly are fine, but if you change just the hose material on your existing barbed fittings, the barbs can probably puncture the new barrier hose and render it worse than what you started with so beadlock items are needed. Not to mention the type of clamps and how they are applied. I found that tidbit on a website <A HREF="http://www.aircondition.com." TARGET=_blank>www.aircondition.com.</A> <P>As for the butane mixes and such, yep, you can use them but I hope you don't run into me, cause a wreck and puncture your a/c lines in the process or the vehicle catches fire. Or in a single car wreck. Agreed, gas and other things in the car are explosive, but "gas" explodes, not liquid. R12 is flamable too, but not like butane or similar.<P>Also, there is a Variable Orifice Valve mentioned and linked to on the <A HREF="http://www.aircondition.com" TARGET=_blank>www.aircondition.com</A> site. It's available from NAPA and other places (listed on the link).<P>Lots of information on that site with two message boards--one of which seemed to be dominated by the propane/butane advocates.<P>As for R12, that issue's dead. You get the same penalty for bringing across the border as for illegal weapons and other controlled substances, which seems somewhat questionable but is a legacy of the Clinton/Reno years. There was also word of the bootleg R12 being more corrosive than the previous North American R12, but that could have been rumors.<P>The key issues with R134a are the amount of charge and type of oil. Maybe a few other minor tweaks. If the cooling decreases in city trafffic or at low speeds, an aux fan in front may be needed plus a fan shround on the older models without them. Most any new or reman compressor is now set up to handle either R12 or R134a, just add the correct oil. The old A6 should be fine as is and the newer "larger" R4s are what GM used prior to the current compressors.<P>The issue of originality might be debated at some time in the future, but if you want to drive the car and such I don't see what the big deal is. I know, if it came with R12 it should have R12 in it, but that option is fast going away--at any cost.<P>Key thing is to have a competent shop do the switch and follow industry guidelines. For the newer vehicles, there is some good information/recommendations in the back of the AC-Delco Air Conditioning parts book. Much of it can also be applied to some of the older vehicles.<P>Keep cool,<BR>NTX5467

Just as with the "Japanese" replacement sheet metal, if it's an exact copy of the original part, it would need to be licensed by GM or the company could face serious copyright infringement litigation. The trick the Japanese vendors used was to either not put the correct holes in the correct places or make them square instead of round, or shorten the stamping by a 1/16th of an inch or so. Those changes made them "reasonable facsimilies" and not exact reproductions. <P>The "twisting" mentioned could have been that the parts were removed from the mold to early, but the necessary fitment mods probably were the reason they are not GM licensed.<P>Just my suspicions. I know that the bumper fillers one of our chapter members got for his 1980 Regal were not exact items, but they fit and worked although he had to remove the bumpers to install the inflexible fiberglass pieces. Not "exact" items, but they looked better than the deteriorated GM pieces on the car. <P>Another chapter member found some nice fillers in the salvage yard after they were discontinued from GM. They were nice until they crumbled during installation, just as the ones he was replacing already had done.<P>I suspect that due to the type of material, even "new in the box" NOS items could suffer from the same situation. GM never boxed them without some sort of bending to get them into the box. A bending situation they might not recover from when removed from the box for painting and installation.<P>Perhaps it might do to shop the vendors and see who has the best items? But I also suspect there is one main producer for these items and everyone else sells them in different locations.<P>Any other input?<P>NTX5467

Many good suggestions.<P>The "only in hot weather" issue tends to point toward a coolant flow situation. It is deceptively easy for a cross flow radiator to be plugged up on the bottom areas and still look decent through the radiator cap area. Not from not using regular tap water, but from the silicates in the coolant.<P>If you need a radiator, I'd recommend using one of the composite units from a later model S-truck (of the same body series) from AC-Delco instead of a copper one. The aluminum unit has much greater heat transfer characteristics than the copper ones. Also make sure you do a OEM-style thermostatic fan clutch, not to mention that all of the factory air dams are under the front end.<P>Most of the radiator cap issues in the GM service bulletins have dealt with only the last couple of model years. There have also been some part number and configuration changes in the radiator caps themselves.<P>There are some visuals on the cap issues in a link on <A HREF="http://www.aircondition.com" TARGET=_blank>www.aircondition.com</A> to the MACS 2001 convention. They are in the presentation that GM and Texaco did on the DexCool coolant. Very informative.<P>Enjoy!<BR>Willis

Greetings:<P>I concur that a western meet's time is somewhat overdue. With respect to the 2003 meet, there is a great reason it's in Flint that year so it should be factored out of the discussion.<P>The last Phoenix meet had several disasters, other than the weather situation. I suspect that as many people east of the Rockies desire to drive to the national meet, they were scared off a little by the informative article in The Bugle (by someone of the host chapter) on how to traverse the desert. The intent obviously was to illustrate that it was possible to do, but might have changed some people's minds about attending in the process.<P>I suspect that as long as the meet will be in the July time frame, the Arizona location will not be a good one. But there is a good reason the meet is when it is with respect to many other things.<P>Attending a national car meet each year in Ohio and then in Indiana and then back in Ohio, it was observed that most of the driving attendees are within a 5 state area. As the greatest concentration of Buicks and their enthusiasts (as evidenced by where the largest chapters are), it is little surprise that the midwest venues are well attended.<P>The Cadillac national meet will be in Denver also this year, in August. I don't know why Denver suddenly has gotten to be a hot spot for national car meets this year, but it could also be a middle ground for a national BCA meet.<P>With respect to crossing the desert and the Rockies, BCA member Cecil Don (CA) has done that many times on his way to the 1996 National Meet we hosted in Plano, TX that year and also in later years too. In vehicles built before 1950 too! So it is possible. At the last Flint meet in the 1980s, I recall one rumble seat Buick roadster driven by a couple from CA that had driven that car to every national meet up until that time, without regard to location.<P>The BCA Board can only approve bids for meets when they are presented to them. It is not the Board's job to actively prospect for meets, only to find the best proposal and act on it. This takes a local chapter, or group of regional chapters, to put together a reasonably workable bid for consideration.<P>Before we did the 1996 National Meet in Texas, those of us in the North Texas chapter questioned our sanity for even considering such a venture. But after some of our members found out how things worked, we discovered that even a smaller chapter with modest funds can and could make it happen. But it took lots of planning and scouting of locations--about 2 years in fact--before a short list was put together and voted on. We also pooled our knowledge of the financial disasters at previous BCA meets and made sure we did not repeat them.<P>Doing a national meet is a large undertaking, no doubt. But, as it's 2001 and the next open date is 2004, then that timing would and should be right for someone out west to get busy and get their proposals together.<P>There are several of us that could offer mentoring to those chapters who might consider doing a national meet. Key thing is not to be scared of doing it and not have "invisible chapter members".<P>Whether that meet is in Denver or farther west is not important, I just don't want our western US members to feel left out for any reason. <P>The people out west are used to the heat in the summer out there, but it's a proven fact that those east of the Mississippi River are not. While it might be neat to drive a vintage Buick to a national meet, there are those of us who like the convenience of flying for various reasons. I recall that Al Eichelberger trailered his Roadmaster to Texas from AZ. And Mr. Brashares sent some of his Buicks also. There are other options to get to a BCA National Meet other than driving.<P>Looking at the chapter roster, I see a lot of chapters in CA. Not to mention Nevada. I believe the last BCA National Meet in CA was in Sacramento in the 1980s. I hope some of our western US associates can make a meet out there a reality.<P>Enjoy!<BR>Willis

Many of these ID codes are also listed in the front of the "Genuine GM paper parts books" for Buicks (1975 and prior in this case).<P>Later models are listed in the appropriate version of the GM Parts computerized database most dealerships now use.

GM claims Dexron III is backward compatible all the way to 1949 in its automatic transmissions. You might find some Type A fluid at some auto supplies in some obscure brands but Type A in the main brands basically disappeared when Dexron came into being in approx 1968.<P>GM still makes a specific Power Steering Fluid in quarts and pints. Later power steering systems require it. It has a little different additive package and appears to be more waxy than ATF. <P>GM also recommends using a hand held vacuum pump pull a slight vacuum on the power steering reservoir to remove the trapped air in the system. It's covered in a training tape of recent vintage from their factory training satellite broadcast. This works better than doing the previous turning the wheel side to side procedure.<P>Dexron III might have better flow characteristics to be more compatible with the newer transmissions and their electronic solenoid controls and it seems to shift just a bit quicker than the previous Dexron II or Dexron IIE in my Turbo 350, but I somewhat doubt it will cause any noise problems as you mention. Maybe I'm incorrect in that presumption, but all of the literature on ATF upgrades supports Dexron replacing Type A in all situations I'm aware of.<P>ATF typically is thinner than power steering fluid and probably will have a higher detergent additive package for many reasons. Every car I've bought that had ATF in the power steering tended to leak until I changed the fluid back to power steering fluid.<P>Enjoy!

A very good article. It did not explain the necessity of the small valves, though, but did mention the more agressive cam specs necessary for the small valves engines to make power.<P>Only thing I saw that could be an error was the mention of the switch-pitch Turbo400 trans being used with engines past when the converters were all not switch-pitch.<P>The cutaway drawing they had of the nailhead looked like it should have been a Hemi, which would have been neat, but probably not cost effective for the GM accountants.<P>I'm waiting for the next issue of Hemmings Rods & Performance to appear . . .

Basic Rochester Q-Jet architecture is 1 3/8" primaries and 2 1/4" secondaries with a rated air flow of 750cfm. There were some 1 1/2" primary models for a few HP engine options circa 1970 that were rated at 800cfm. Later models were pulled back to about 650cfm as the secondary air valve did not open to a complete 90 degree angle as the earlier models did.<P>Typically, most stock motors don't need close to 750cfm to build max power. Holley built some 450cfm replacement spreadbores that were just a good on the primaries as the Q-Jet, but lacked the "secondary rush" of the Q-Jet due to the smaller secondaries in them. <P>If you don't get a correct Q-Jet for it, try for a "correct" spreadbore from Holley for that particular model. Put the correct GM base gasket with it and enjoy the fact it typically hooks up exactly like the factory carb did.<P>Enjoy!

A recent article on GM's move to improve the fuel economy on utility vehicles mentioned the "cylinder kill" strategy. It was mentioned that the technology and equipment are now much better than with the Cadillac system of earlier years.<P>I have also noticed that the limp-in mode in the event of coolant loss has been expanded to some other GM engines now also.<P>As crude as that earlier high-tech Cadillac stuff was, it kept the EPA at bay long enough for the newer engines to come online with better fuel economy and for the newer bodies to get into production for them.<P>I suspect the new systems will work much better than the old ones ever could.<P>NTX5467