joe_padavano

GMs with manual convertible tops used springs in place of the hydraulic cylinders to offload the weight of the top. Good luck finding those today.

I did a little research and it turns out that the 65-70 B-body cars and the 71-76 cars all use the same inner and outer front wheel bearings. I'd be willing to bet that a 71-76 front rotor will bolt onto that 70 Delta. You may want to grab an inexpensive wrecking yard rotor off a 71-76 B-body and compare it to yours for thickness and offset.

This site might be useful: http://www.kleenwheelsincolor.com/kwic_determining_bolt_circle_diameter.htm

I suggest you try measuring the bolt circle again, because ALL 65-70 Olds 88s came with a 5 x 5" bolt circle. If you're just measuring between two of the lugs, you won't get the correct dimension. If you have a compass, try drawing a 5" diameter circle on a piece of paper then overlaying the paper on the ends of the lugs. This circle should pass through the center of all five of the bolts. Having said that, it does sound like you have the original setup. And you are correct, no one makes replacement rotors for the 65-70 cars that I can find. What part of the rotor is actually "broken"? If it's just excessively worn there are shops that will flame spray new metal onto the rotor and resurface them. This is the same process as is used to "weld" up worn cranks and is done frequently for aircraft brakes. Maybe you could post a picture of the car and the front rotors? That would help a lot.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Edit- I wonder if someone managed to adapt 77-later B body spindles and brakes to this car. I think suspension geometry is different, but I suppose it could be done. Padavano- do you know if later spindles will adapt to these cars? And Bear- has this car been lowered or otherwise changed? That will help us narrow down what you've got. </div></div> Glenn, That was exactly my thought when I saw the 4 3/4 bolt pattern. As you probably know, the 77-90 B-body cars came with one of two bolt patterns. There were 11" diameter by 1" thick front rotors with the 4 3/4" bolt circle (used on sedans) and the 12" diameter by 1" thick rotors with the 5" bolt circle (used on the wagons, 98s, Caddys, and police/taxi cars). These spindles and rotors CAN be adapted to the earlier cars. It requires retrofitting the later upper and lower ball joints and outer tie rod ends since the ball stud taper is different. You're probably aware that this is a popular swap on the A-body cars, but there's no reason someone couldn't have done it to a B-body also. Original 65-70 B-body disc brake setups are very rare. The easy way to tell which spindle you have is to look at the caliper mounting ears. The 65-70 spindles use a separate caliper mounting bracket that bolts to the spindle. The steering arm is also separate and bolts on from the back. All 71-96 spindles are a one-piece forging with integral caliper mounting ears and steering arm. If you have a one-piece spindle, it's been changed. If you have a multi-piece spindle with bolt-on caliper bracket and steering arm, it's original and you should recheck that lug bolt circle. Note that the thin metal splash shield may cover the part of the caliper bracket where it bolts to the spindle, making it difficult to see the seam on the bolt-on design. Also, grease and dirt may further obscure the joint, so check carefully. I want to be certain that this car really has a 4 3/4" bolt circle on the front rotors, however. If it really is 4 3/4", then it would use different wheels on the back, since those would still be the 5" bolt circle drums. Is that the case?

See my response on 442.com

The only 68 A-body with a 455 was the Hurst/Olds, but the 400 offered in the 442 that year was externally identical. In 68, all the Olds A-body cars used the same motor and frame mounts, so any 350 mounts will work as well. Be careful, because the big block mounts changed in 1969 and many vendors incorrectly list the 69-72 rubber motor mounts as 68 mounts. In reality, the 64-69 small block and 65-68 big block motor and frame mounts are all identical, so you can use any of those and be correct. In fact, so long as you use motor and frame mounts as a matched set, you can use any 64-72 A-body mounts and the 455 will fit just like stock. There are three different motor/frame mount configurations - the early mounts I noted above, the 69-72 big block mounts, and the 70-72 small block mounts. All three configurations will put the block and the crank centerline in exactly the same place when used as a matched set, but due to dimensional differences you can't mix (for example) a 69 big block rubber motor mount with a 68 frame mount. As for the trans, is it a long tail housing or short tail housing TH400? The A-body cars use the short configuration, though I've heard of people who used the long trans and had a custom driveshaft made. It isn't easy to change the tail housing as the output shaft also needs to be changed, which requires the trans to come apart. You really want to get the engine at the proper level, since having it misaligned will cause problems with things like fan shroud clearance, carb float level, u-joint alignment, linkages, and exhaust system.

I often have to remind people not to confuse asking prices with selling prices. There are a lot of similarly outragous asking prices on ebay and other auction sites. What I like to do periodically is to do a search for your favorite car (Olds 442s in my case) but search on completed auctions. It appears that few if any of these cars actually sell. Virtually all of them are "reserve not met". I'm especially skeptical when the bidding poops out just under the reserve (ebay now has a little flag that says "next bid meets reserve" or something like that). Even the cars that do "sell" frequently end up relisted a week later because of some issue with the buyer. Unfortunately I think many people see the prices at BJ and the fantasy asking prices on auction sites and assume they can get that same level. A dealer near me here in VA brought a 70 Cutlass convert to Carlisle. The car had 442 grilles and emblems, but only a 350 engine, so I wouldn't even call it a clone. Despite large rust bubbles on the front fenders and poorly installed patch panels on the rear, he was asking $29,500. The car is back on his lot this week...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ...You are only allowed to turn a rotor .060, so it doesn't take much to render them useless. good luck in your search.... </div></div> Actually, that's not true. Every rotor made is required to have a cast-in minimum thickness on the face of it. Many newer cars have very thin rotors to start with (to save weight) and sometimes you can't even turn them once. On the other hand, older cars were less weight sensitive and frequently rotors can be turned several times.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm coming up blank on the VIN pad. </div></div> Meaning that you can't find it or that it is really blank? If it's really blank, this is a replacement block. The dealership was supposed to re-stamp the VIN derivative when installing a replacement block, but may not have.

You do realize that despite the 17" rims, those tires are somewhat smaller in diameter than the original tires, right? Your proposed fronts are only 24.4" in diameter and the rears are 25.7". I've run 245/60-14s (25.6" diameter) on factory SSIII 14x7 rims and 255/60-15s (27" diameter) on factory 69 Hurst/Olds rims on all four corners of various 68-72 Cutlii with no problems. I don't know how your proposed wheel offset compares to that of the factory rims, but it sounds about right. Just keep in mind that unless you plan do lower the car significantly, you'll have a lot of daylight between the tires and the fender opening. The 245/60-14s look absolutely lost in the wheelwells of an A-body. The 255/60-15s fill the wheel well and look great.

First, a Cutlass is an A-body and a Jetstar is a B-body. Two different cars and two different wheel wells. Second, a 225/45-17 tire is less than 25 inches in diameter. That's smaller than the tires that came on the 65 Jetstar originally. Third, comparing a 17x7 and a 17x8 is meaningless unless you know the offset (or backspacing) of each, since that effects clearance also.

The wheel diameter isn't important. It's the tire diameter that matters. For example, you can buy a 17" tire that's smaller in outside diameter than some 14" tires. It's all a function of tire aspect ratio.

The "heavy duty" frame option on the mid-sixties cars was simply a convertible frame under a hardtop.

My Hollanders says 63-64 are the same and 65-70 are the same. Unfortunately, my book doesn't cover 62 and earlier.

Is the rust on the inboard surface or the outboard? Convertible and HT frames use the same outside members. The main difference is the additional pieces welded to the HT frame to box it out. These are specially formed parts, not just flat pieces, so boxing a later model frame is a lot more complex than on a street rod. However, if the special convertible sections on your frame are in usable shape, you COULD cut them out of the old frame and weld them into a HT frame.

I'm pretty sure the 65-70 B-body convertibles all use the same frame. It is not easy to convert an unboxed hardtop frame to a convertible frame. On street rods, where the frame is a relatively simple C-channel, boxing the frame is not too difficult. On these cars, the convertible frame starts with a hardtop frame then uses a number of specially shaped sections that fit inside the channel of the hardtop frame for reinforcement. These are not simple plates or even channels, but are formed sections that taper to clear the floor pan and other obstacles. Look closely at your convertible frame and you'll see where these additional pieces have been welded in. If the welded-in parts are in good shape, you CAN carefully cut them out of the old frame and weld them into a hardtop frame. I doubt, however, if this is really cost effective. At some point it's cheaper to just buy a complete car from the desert and start with that. Unfortunately, the very nature of the boxed convertible frame retains moisture and promotes rust.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So if I had (have) factory shoulder belts in my '71 Cutlass Convert . . it would be a bit special? </div></div> Yup. They were a seldom-seen factory option that year.

78-88 A/G body cars with a manual trans like this 79 Olds are pretty rare. That's not to say they will bring big bucks however. The trans is a T5, primarily used behind V6s and very low horsepower V8s. Factory rating on the 260 is around 110 HP or so, if I recall. Not exactly Oldsmobile's finest hour.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Factory 2bbl olds engine were 8 or 8.5 to one compression engines, but the two speeds were designed and bult for the quarter mile. If it runs right it will burn tires. How much you get out of it depends on how much you put into it. Everything is available to make it screem. Just figure out what you want and what you are willing to spend. Mike </div></div> I'm going to have to respectfully disagree here. The 2 speed Junkaway...er, Jetaway is NOT a Powerglide. It's a Super Turbine 300 (ST-300), a completely different trans. First gear is 1.76:1 (yes, that is the same as a PG); a TH400 or TH350 has a steeper first gear that will improve off-the-line acceleration.

As I noted in my earlier post, convertibles were exempted in the Federal regs. On the other hand, shoulder belts (front and back) were optionally available in convertibles (at least according to the Fisher Body manual) but I've never seen one.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have a 71 cutlass convertible and i need to replace the window regulators. My teeth are all chopped up and the windows of course don't go up correctly or all the way. What other cars can i take these off of? My buddy has some from a 70/71 camro, will these fit and work properly? Any help is appreciated, thanks. </div></div> Camaro will definitely not work. Any 71-72 GM A-body (Cutlass, Chevelle, LeMans, Skylark) 2 dr hardtop or convertible will work. 68-70 A-body may also work, but I know there was a change to the window mechanism somewhere in there due to the requirement for impact beams in the doors.

Actually, 1968 was the first year that front seat shoulder belts (along with side marker lights) were federally mandated, so yes, a 68 should have them. Note that shoulder belts were optionally available prior to 68, but all 68s (except convertibles) were required to have them.

A 67 front bumper is differenf from a 66

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The block numbers are 30M137064 and the heads are a "C" series, part number 394 548. Best we can tell is the 69 442 had a 70 short block installed (warranty possibly?) </div></div> Actually, a factory warranty replacement block would have come unstamped. The dealers were instructed to stamp the new block with the number from the old block. The fact that this block has a different VIN derivative on it indicates that the block was originally installed in a 1970 production car and at some time the owner of the 69 442 either blew up the original 400 or just wanted a 455. Or else, the motor didn't really come from a 69 442 and was just assembled from various parts (admittedly, good ones, however).