2seater

I believe GM Ross mentioned a jerking/surging feeling when at low rpm with the torque converter locked up may be caused by loose driveshafts. I have been chasing this problem, but to no avail, and I am asking what is the proper procedure to check them for looseness? I jacked the front end off the ground and grasped both wheels at the same time, and tried turning them in opposite directions against each other and could detect little if any play. What I am wondering about is the fact that they are hanging down, so the joints are not in the normal loaded poosition, so the joints may be in a less worn location? Is there a way to raise the wheel end to the normal position without damaging anything? The lower arm looks to be relatively light metal which I was unsure of jacking on. Pushing and pulling on the shafts sideways only showed some movement at the right inner joint. Any guidance appreciated. The manual is less than enlightening.

Recently there was a question on the interchange of engine parts from one year to the next. I took a stroll through a local yard and found some things that may, or may not be of interest. I found aluminum "snakes" manifolds on a couple of 1990 Oldsmobiles? Plastic ones on '92's. Three individual coils on 1986 3.8 fwd cars, located in the "old" location on the top rear of the engine. One of the '92's with the plastic intake had the older "brick" style coils. The '90's with the aluminum snakes intake had the same style exhaust as the non-snakes. The snakes manifold would likely bolt on, but lots of things are in different locations: water outlet, EGR, fuel lines and regulator etc.. It looks like a lot of running changes may have been made over a period of several years.

Be a little careful here. Padgett is right about the module for the 3.8 being different than the 3800, because of a different style crank sensor, although they both used a "brick" coil pack. I "think" the coils are the same but to be sure, check the pairing of the cylinders on the coils. I heard there was a possible difference there also. #1 & #4 should be paired on the end of the coil where the module harness connection is.

Great! Thanks for letting us know on the possible resolution.

Was the battery really dead, or did it just act that way? No good suggestions other than a weird occurence that happened some years ago on an Olds. The positive battery cable ran through a metal tube for a short distance, clamped to the engine if I remember right. The conductor inside the cable eventually broke but the outer plastic sheath looked okay. When it would get hot the plastic covering softened and allowed the contact to break inside. When it cooled it shrank back and allowed the car to operate normally. Maybe no help, but odd things can happen.

Ditto on the MSD box. The total timing sounds about right, but what rpm is it all in? You could probably tolerate a bit more timing, but it may be more helpful to bring it in faster, or possibly more initial timing and slow down and/or limit the curve. Really a matter of experimenting but only one step at a time. Easy to bump the initial timing a few degrees and see if it helps the bog. If not, the problem likely lies elsewhere.

I concur with Reatta Man in the pump shot being to small, or it is shot in too quickly to cover the fuel needs until the main fuel system kicks in. Raising the float level will quicken the response of the main system starting to flow, but it can be overdone. I would start by verifying the fuel level is correct. Check to be sure the accelerator pump shot starts as soon as you crack the throttle. If it is shot in too quickly, the car will probably launch and then bog until the mains start. There are all sorts of different accelerator pump cams and "shooters" available, but if the carb. is fresh from the box, I would start with the basic things first. The suggestion on advancing the timing, a couple of degrees at a time, is also a good way to snap the car off the line, as long as pinging is avoided. I do not know what your fuel octane requirements are, but if you are running more octane than required, the engine will most likely want more ignition advance.

It looks a little different now (old photo) but that is a turbocharger where the stock air box was. The engine is a '90 vin "C". The turbo is an amalgam of three different ones from the same family, the Garrett T3. There are now triple vents from the valve covers, no connection to the PCV system from the air intake pipe and the air filter now resides where the charcoal cannister used to be, outside the engine bay forward of the left wheel.

You need to have an adjustable fuel pressure requlator. The only reason to change fuel pressure would be to supply more fuel to match a substantial engine upgrade. If you do push the fuel pressure higher, it is a good idea to have a fresh fuel pump, as high pressure is harder on the pump than low pressure. Opening the exhaust restriction is a good complement to helping the intake restrictions. The 2.5" exhaust would probably be a good addition also, but no larger. I have no experience with the larger diameter as mine boosts just fine with the stock 2.25", although I do not have a cat.

The displacement per cylinder was not what I was trying to illustrate, it is the flow rate at various pressures. Ford used the same injector in the 302 and the 351, at least in some vehicles. The design of that particular injector is wrong for our application, and what I am using is from a Corvette. Our intake is bored straight through so we cannot use the injectors with the little plastic "hat" on the end. I got mine from Sunrise carburetor http://www.suncarb.com/ They deal in reconditioned injectors as well. You could just push the stock injectors to about 4 bar, or 58 psi and get almost 22lb/hr, which should supply over 220 hp at 85% duty cycle. Personally I prefer to run the injector at a little higher duty cycle since they "dribble" badly when they open and close which is part of the reason if the ECM isn't designed for it, or you don't need it, a big injector is a bad idea. The only reason I have larger injectors is to try to supply fuel to the turbo engine. The stock injectors, and stock pressure, worked just fine even with higher compression, no cat. larger throttle body, premium fuel chip, CAI and hand porting of the intake and heads. Horsepower was estimated at between 195-197 and the injectors ran at just over 90% @ 5000 rpm.

Most auto makers run the injectors at a fairly low duty cycle, maybe 75%-80%, partly to keep them cool and give long life, plus an extra margin if they start to plug. For most all around driving, they rarely see even that, and you can calculate how hard yours are working by simply watching the injector pulse width. At 5000 rpm the total time available to inject a full fuel load is 24 ms. You can also play with fuel pressure to change the delivery. For example GM runs a 22lb/hr injector at the standard 3 bar or 43.5 psi in one model of 350 and Ford uses an equivalent injector at a lower pressure of about 36 psi in the 5 litre at about 19 lb/hr. Larger or smaller injectors themselves do not directly impact the power output, except when it goes to full fuel mode at high throttle opening. There just needs to be enough to avoid lean out (bad), and yet be small enough for the ECM to control effectively. I am running a 24 lb/hr injector @ 3.5 bar for about 26 lb/hr, which seems to be close to what the stock ECM can control. In some cruise modes, the BLM is down around 100, so the computer has adjusted a long way to keep the Integrator around 128. As for wheel size, larger wheel sizes seem to slow the acceleration somewhat, at least from what I have read. If the total package is lighter, it would negate the effect somewhat of placing the greatest density, the actual rim, further from the center, where it will have a greater inertia. I have no facts to back this up, but it does make sense mathmatically, that if total weight is equal, moving the greater portion of the weight outward, will cause the total package to require more energy to spin it up, or slow it down. The one advantage of pumping up the stock engine is it does not require any other substantial changes, like ECM's and different sensors etc.. The down side is, the total power output does not have the same potential as a boosted engine. You should be able to realistically achieve something around 200 gross hp, with basic hot rodding, which is about a 20% increase. You will feel that much of a difference. Parts to overhaul a Buick are 2-3 times as expensive as the equivalent Chebbie stuff, but the machine work is the same. A good used L67 engine, not requiring susbstantial work, is most likely less expensive, but has other issues. Different strokes I guess.

The synthetics do seem to have a better wicking ability, and the rope seals don't run as "dry" as the more modern rubber lip seals. When synthetics first became common, there was a lot of talk about engines becoming leakers because of it. Sealing technology has improved and I suspect there may have been some changes to the makeup of the synthetics to reduce this tendency, but for my money, synthetics are far superior by any test standard. Does the engine really need it? That argument has gone on since synthetics became common, and it really depends on you. I do run Mobil 1 in all my cars and truck, and I can attest to how clean the engine stays inside, but mostly it's just because the synthetics are the best stuff out there, and that goes for the transmission and differential too. A small leak may be the result, but my $0.02 says it is worth it.

You can crank up the power a bit by simply installing the vin L pistons in the vin C engine. The "L" pistons have a higher compression height and bolt right in. As far as I know, the first 3800's from '88 on are the Series I, the series II appeared somewhere around '95-97. Boring the engine larger will increase the compression ratio all by itself, if all other things are equal. The overbore limit seems to be .040". I do not know if the later model vin L manifold or throttle body will fit, but, the stock throttle body can be bored about 5mm larger and a new throttle blade installed. The rear manifold is restricted, and it can be corrected, but it may be possible the vin L manifolds will bolt right up, which would be an improvement. Using otherwise stock components, if the intake air box is replaced with a cold air intake and some mild massaging is done to the heads, it should yield 192-195 hp. A little hotter cam would help even more. A Padgett pointed out, the '88 cam has more lift but less duration than the '90 cam, but yet hp ratings are the same? I do not know if the vin L cam has any performance advantage, but I do know the fastening system is a little different, so all drive components for the cam would need to be vin L. The stock 18.8 lb injectors can easily support 200 hp, even more if you want to push the pressure higher.

A belt will make that kind of sound. Is the belt straight in all the little grooves?

I do not know of Puritan but I have ordered many items from Van de Veere Olds through Dal Slaubaugh at lockitup@bright.net You can e-mail Dal direct at that address for price quotes.

There really shouldn't be any issues with antifreeze in the oil as the passage in the throttle body is sealed from the intake tract, however, the steel tubes for the throttle body heating will not fit if the throttle body is relocated. A spacer between the MAF and the throttle body will work (I have one for different reasons), but there are a lot of things in the way to get any additional plumbing into the spacer.

Just for info. purposes, I am running an alcohol injection system that injects ahead of the MAF. It has about a 30 deg. cone spray and is directed against the screen but biased to the side away from the actual sensor passage. So far no issues. It is set to turn on @ 3.5 lbs. of boost. I am not sure what other benefit it would have if the system is otherwise stock. It would probably enable you to use more timing with 87 octane, or maybe more compression ratio, but you will use a lot of alcohol.

Technically, you have a 384.5 cu/in. The typical 383 is a 350 block bored .030" over. More is better.

Hey Padgett, go a little further in the manual to 5B3 and 5B7, front and rear brakes. It sure looks like they are on the trailing edge, although I suspect they will work on either side. If I understood your earlier conjecture, the leading edge will tend to pull in toward the rotor under braking making the indicator more effective if on the leading edge? Sorta like the self energizing which occurs with drum brakes. I gotta admit I have never detected any large difference in the pad thickness on a properly operating system. You are right though, the page you indicated does appear to show it on the leading edge, unless you were backing up

Do you need to know anything? Even though this is a Buick site, the stroked 350 Chebbie is a good combination that does work well. We have one in my sons off road race car. Pretty good torque motor when stroked. Almost as good as a Buick

From the sketches in my manual, it appears the indicator goes on the trailing edge of the outer pad, front and rear. I suspect it will be more effective this way as the force of contact will tend to stretch the spring steel and allow it to vibrate more easily. If it is on the leading edge, the contact will tend to compress the spring. Sorta like scratching your fingernails on an old blackboard. It seemed to work better if you pulled them across the surface. Just my logic.

The engine itself should be okay, but you may need to transfer some of your existing stuff to the new engine. I believe the EGR is operated differently and possibly the exhaust manifolds if the EGR has to be changed. I am not absolutely certain, but there will most likely be some small control differences, but those original items from your '89 engine should bolt on. The intake will probably be different too but it may work just fine, plus you will pickup a small amount of horsepower.

The ECM has no way to monitor fuel pressure, it is modulated by the vacuum operated fuel pressure regulator only. The fuel pump runs continuously, and the only connection to the ECM is through the start/prime relay. I drove around for a month with a fuel pressure gauge taped to my windshield while sorting out fuel pressure for my turbo install. It got a lot of strange looks. A kit shouldn't cost more than $30-$35, but you will have to extend the hose to get it in a position to read while driving. A cheaper alternative, is a #4 37 deg. swivel connection which will fit the pressure tap. You can buy one for a few bucks with a hose barb on the other end, and it will need to be a 90 deg. to fit with the hood closed. You just need a 100 psi pressure gauge which can be found for $6-$8, a few feet of fuel injection hose and a hose barb to connect the gauge to hose. The only "problem" with this cheaper alternative is you must remove the valve core from the fuel pressure tap to use it. The swivel fitting lacks the stud to depress the valve core.

Thanks for the link. It does seem like snake oil to me too, but hey, it isn't a lot of money to waste, if that's what it turns out to be. I am trying to figure out how they turned an engine like ours that tight? If mine was able to rev that high, it might actually produce similar horsepower. Our engines produce their peak torque around 2000 rpm, so I cannot figure out how the torque peak could change so radically? Ours runs out of wind around 4500 rpm due to the cam and air flow characteristics. I see the bidding is also closed.

What is it supposed to be? Do you have a link?