2seater

I'm with you on this one. IMHO a blackwall tire sets off nice wheels, it doesn't compete with the look of the wheel. Of course it is purely a matter of personal taste, and if you like whatever look you choose, that is entirely your right. Of course this is only my opinion, and I am from the rat rod school, that if it works, stops, goes, turns or rides to your taste, the beauty is in the function, the rest is just window dressing <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Do you have any fuel in the vacuum line to the regulator? Unlikely since your pressures look reasonable, but it doesn't hurt to check. A leaky injector, at least one that bad, would probably give you a rough idle. The only other place I could think of would be the connection between the pump and the steel line that exits the tank, where the pulsator is located inside the tank. I have heard of some GM installed injectors, Motec if I remember right, that leaked externally after a heavy dose of injector cleaner, but ours generally use Bosch injectors, and you would smell a leak like that, even if not readily visible. There isn't any easy way to isolate the regulator , except by disconnecting the return line and plugging the port from the regulator to see if the pressure drop continues. You would need to be careful as the pump is capable of very high pressures if it has no way to return fuel. An alternative, would be to disconnect the return and slowly bump the pressure up to around 40 psi and see if the return from the regulator allows fuel through. It shoudn't until it reaches the normal set pressure of around 43psi. This is also somewhat dangerous.

The biggest difference I have found is the higher quality tools generally have more power, particularly in the impacts and such. There is a very large difference between a 1/2" impact with 200 odd ft/lbs of torque vs one with 400 ft/lbs. It isn't as noticeable in die grinders and other such tools, but it is there and the higher quality tools seem to be easier to "feather". One other thing to looks at is air usage. There can be a wide variation in the air flow requirements between tools, not terribly important if you have a large compressor. I do have a varied selection of air tools, and a few are from Harbor Freight, and they have been reliable.

You could reposition the oil sender by drilling and tapping a 1/4" npt hole in some other location on the filter adapter. If you look at the filter adapter it has a common passage internally that will all show the same pressure. I tapped the rear of the adapter to pick up oil for the turbo. An alternate idea would be a fitting tapped into the oil cooler if you add one.

Frankly, I don't see why RTV wouldn't work fine for this application. It isn't a very complicated system and as long as there is a reasonable seal, it should work fine. I would let it set up well before starting the engine. I don't know if how much actual pressure is present inside the engine, shouldn't be much, and ideally there would be a slight vacuum, but better to let it get somewhat solid before trying it.

Which grommet? If it is the lower one, (and it probably is),it shouldn't do any harm, there is a pan attached to the bottom of the manifold to prevent oil splash from getting up to the PCV valve, and it can't get out of that. The upper one into the actual intake plenum would likely be a problem. You might not have to pull the manifold to find it, but you would have to pull the throttle body and manifold adapter, not a fun job with the coolant lines that are connected to the manifold and throttle body. Even when you can see into the manifold it is possible it fell down into the #2 port and it is several inches down to the actual valve, making it very difficult if it got down in there. The other possibility if it is the upper: if the MAF is removed, and the throttle blocked open, you can see into the manifold with a small light and maybe one of those little grabber things could access it if it is sitting on the floor of the plenum.

Sure sounds like a battery or cable problem. I don't know if modern batteries are more or less prone than older designs, but I think the density of the plates is greater than before and I have had complete battery failure with no warning. It didn't just get weak, it went almost stone dead and refused to take a charge thereafter, even jumpstarting did no good. I drove the car fifty miles to the cottage. The following morning the car was dead, no warning of any kind. Not completely dead, but not enough power to crank the engine. Nothing you were working on should have caused a problem like this. It may be possible the starter has developed a problem and the current draw is very high causing everything else to drop out when engaged? A load test on the battery is what I would recommend as a starting point.

Welcome. It's always good to have another on board. Misery loves company <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Try tapping on the MAF with the engine idling to see if it makes a difference to the idle quality. It may just be a severe vacuum leak to cause the expected MAF reading to be way out of range to set a code, although I haven't ever seen that happen. Do you actually have brakes with the boost pump inoperative?

About 4-5 psi of boost with a little more injector to go with it.

The two things are somewhat related, primarily through the ICM and crank sensor for starting. The ICM must get a signal from the crank sensor to start the spark and fuel pulse. For the most part it is possible to get spark without fuel, but not possible to get fuel without spark, or at least the signal for spark. ICM would be a good place to start. Usually the crank sensor doesn't cure itself. A harness problem could exist. There is a short harness across the front of the engine that ties the crank sensor, cam sensor and ICM together and it connects to the harness from the ECM at the right rear corner of the engine. There have been cases where the harness is out of position and some moving object, like the belt or a pulley, wears through it.

I have not done so, but thinking about it, it may be possible. The torque converter will have to be able to slide far enough into the transaxle to allow the crank to drop down with the flex plate attached. The front cover and timing set would have to be removed as well. Due to the design of the block, the main caps inset into the block (deep skirted block), and I do not see how the inserts could be removed unless the crank is pulled out. I believe it would be a real bear to do, and difficult to keep it as clean as it should be. The engine can be pulled in an afternnon by one person if you know what you are doing and is probably a better idea.

Yeah, you are right and I do remember it was a 60's engine, sold briefly to AMC and then bought back by GM. I don't remember all of the details so I hedged <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> As a matter of fact my trunk label for my '90 says 3.8. My only point was it is an old design, that evolved and became more refined over a long time. I have a friend with a mid-'70's odd fire 3.8, 4-barrel carb, a little bit of cam and a five speed in an Anglia. The old thing really sings and rev's like crazy. A good match for the light Anglia. As for the GN's, they may be ultimately stronger than the 3800, but it isn't a lot, unless beefed with a lower end girdle and such. The 3800 is internally more efficient, so comparable hp. can be generated with a 3800 at lower boost. The GN's appear to have been underated, probably on purpose, but on paper the later model 240hp supercharged engine has similar stock output, with only a little more than half the boost even after subtracting the drag of the s/c. Some of the cars in the film clip don't actually have 3.8's, they are 274 cu.in. Stage motors, similar to the ones developed for NASCAR racing. They are similar to the 3.8's, same basic design, but beefier and the heads have an additional bolt for each cylinder. Not dissing the GN's, I have seen many really fast ones, and they are impressive, even by modern standards.

Find it, and it is worth a bunch to me. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Actually I suspect it was more than a simple program change. I suspect they integrated they earlier GN (less powerful) ECM to run them, and the instrument panel readout and control is not mentioned in any article I have found.

The 3.8's in the Regal T-Type/Grand Nationals are the same basic architecture as the 3800, which came later. I have seen the cars pictured run for several years at Bristol, and Beech Bend at the GS Nationals, and they are stout, although far from "stock". Lingenfelter Corvettes also were "sacrificed" for the Buick crowd too. Not to say that they didn't perform, they were the fastest GM cars of the time period, and are fast even today. Even after GM went to the 3800 with better oiling, heads and roller cam, the older design 3.8 Turbo Trans Am of 1989 paced the Indy 500 in essentially stock form. All of them turn 12's with little work and tuning. The 3.8 liter Buick has been around for a long, long time, over 30 years in fact. The odd fire turned into the 3.8 even fire in the late '70's, went through n/a and turbocharged forms through the late '70's through the mid '80's, became the 3800 in the late 80's, series I, II and III almost to the present. All with the same bore and stroke, but evolutionary changes along the way. They are the same family, sorta like the SBC, but have evolved over time. Contrary to some opinion, the turbo 3.8 Grand National engines were not more efficient, they simply had boost working for them. An early 3800, which is more efficient internally, can produce similar factory hp. with approx. 1/2 of the boost. The stock 3800 heads flow almost as well as the Stage I 3.8 heads of an earlier time. I have have seen the flow ratings (of course I cannot find the comparisons now <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />) but the later engine is more efficient. Many tests from early years of the 3800 indicate it takes about 500hp to blow the crank out the bottom. Someting in the 350-400 hp. range would likely live a long time if treated with due respect.

I have seen this before as well, the problem is what became of the cars (I know some were destroyed) and how did they make them integrate to the stock Reatta electronics? I have never found the answer. They proto'd high and low boost fwd Reatta's and hi-boost rwd (GN drivetrain) but no other details have been forthcoming. Mine is similar to the low boost (8 psi or so) and it makes for a completely different and tractible car, but the tuning has always been a problem. GM doesn't give up it's secrets and I could really use how it was made to work.

Any number of things can rattle at normal idle speeds, heat shields on the exhaust and catalytic converter. The common one is the harmonic damper, but your experience is a little different than typical for that. It isn't common, but it is possible the torque converter to flex plate bolts are loose. You need to pull the plastic inspection cover on the bottom of the converter enclosure and check the torque value of all three bolts. If loose, it will rattle like crazy under certain conditions, and can damage the flex plate over time. Also look for cracks around the bolt holes. You won't be able to see if there are cracks where the flexplate mounts to the crankshaft flange. You will also be able to see the starter gear if there may be a hangup there. You might try narrowing the search a little by listening under the hood while a helper creates the situations when the noise occurs. A mechanics stethyscope or even a big screwdriver held to your ear while contacting various areas near where you suspect the problem to be may help. Noises can be tough to find since the source may not be obvious and the sound may emanate from some other item. If you indeed determine it is coming from the transaxle, and no external cause is obvious, the next step would be to drop the pan and see if there are unusual parts in the pan.

I am still using the stock 121k mile trans at this time, no rebuild done when the turbo went on. Transaxle holds up okay if treated with some respect. It is serviced regularly, and has a large trans. cooler. I figure, if you break it, then you fix it. My compression is really too high for the turbo also, even higher than stock @ 9.1:1. The original intent was as you mentioned, old school hot rodding. Raise the compression, port the heads etc.. That worked pretty well, fuel and air flow readings indicated in the 185-190 hp range. More cam to extend the useful rev range would probably yield around 200 hp. Added the turbo before the cam or rockers were investigated, and not much existed several years ago when the turbo project started. I have been detoured from the car project this summer by other things, but off and on, I am investigating adding an intercooler, re-orienting the turbo for a couple of reasons, changing to a 3" MAF (55% greater flow at the same frequency) and changing the flow pattern inside the manifold on the flow bench.

It sounds like the total reduction in top gear is pretty close if the rpm @ 70 is correct. I cannot find gear ratios for the automatic listed in the manual. Mine runs 72 mph @ 2000 rpm. What does yours do now? I would think it should be similar. The final drive should be 2.97.

The range sounds right. Usually will go a little higher than 4.10 but as long as the bottom end is adjusted properly, the other end is what it is. You could adjust the TPS to have a little more at the idle position, about .42 seems to be optimum, it will get into power enrichment slightly sooner when the throttle is depressed toward wide open but the .38 is acceptable. As long as the increase in volts is progressive as you slowly open the throttle, without spikes upwards or downwards, it is operating properly.

I don't think there would be real performance advantage unless the basic design is better. The front manifold is actually pretty good. I think some of the later model guys that have a cast iron front manifold are switching to the tubular one and picking up power doing so. The rear manifold needs work beyond the restriction. Removing the restriction helps, but that point on the rear manifold appears to be particularly turbulent where the exhaust from #2 & #4 run into the exhaust from the front and #6. A longer outlet neck with the front and rear exhaust merged more smoothly is a pretty common thing on aftermarket headers. Without changing the length of the outlet and keeping the stock design, (an downpipe), my logic indicates useful gain could probably be made by cutting the "tee" junction and installing a portion of 90* elbows back to back to provide a better guide for the exhaust toward the outlet rather than running directly into each other. One of my future plans to test on the flowbench, but since my manifolds are now completely different than stock, it went on the back burner.

I am not sure about the bolt pattern. I am pretty sure all of the Series I engines, '91 and up are the same as the vin C engines, but I have not tried it personally.

No, I agree with you. 180 degree t'stat and fan reprogram is a good deal. I actually run colder @ 160 with an even lower fan setting, but is summer only. For maximum economy, hotter than standard is better, but it has other undesirable effects.

Unfortunately my old Fastchip has been reburned for the turbo project or you could have had it <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> F14 makes a good point about adjusting the fans lower but, you will need to go to a lower temperature thermostat also or the fans will run constantly. I also suggest changing the torque converter lockup speed to a higher number, or at least keep it out of lockup in anything but fourth gear. This works particularly well if you drive a lot in suburban settings at speeds below about 50 mph. It may have a small impact on fuel economy at these speeds but it keeps from lugging the engine and sharpens throttle response by keeping the rpms up a little. It will not change highway economy at all. F14 is right that the stock chip works pretty well with 87 octane, and a very small gain will be made if you increase timing and run premium fuel. In this time of high fuel costs, that is less attractive.

Possible problem with one of the switches on the brake pedal arm. If the switch is out of adjustment it can cause the cruise control to drop out or, the torque converter can unlock, changing the engine speed by a few hundred rpm. Also common for an ignition miss to show up around a 50 mph speed as well. The engine is under fairly high load at low rpm, where it is just shifting into fourth gear and locking up the converter. As the speed goes higher, the symptoms should lessen.

The Riv muffler will be a single outlet also. Not really a problem, just looks different.