50 Olds 88 Gas Tank same as 50 Chevy?

[bill pritchett]

Does anyone have the Hollander Interchange Manual that would show if a 50 Olds 88 4 door sedan gas tank (part # 557667) is the same as a 50 Chevrolet gas tank for the same model.

[bill pritchett]

Update, I was able to get access to a Hollander Interchange Manual. Believe it or not, Chevy, Pontiac, and Olds are not interchangeable and only work within their brands. Who knew?

[rocketraider]

Not surprising given the relative autonomy the Divisions had back then.

I see no good reason why a reproduction 62-64 Chevy gas tank won't work on same year Olds and Buick, but Hollander says no and the repop companies don't want to sell me one for an Impala for my Olds. Guess they don't want a return. Big deal- if it didn't fit I have plenty of Chevy friends who'd take it.

[PONTIAC1953]

hi bill and glen, go to tanksinc.com, look at the listings for buick gas tanks, one of these is what i'm going to use in my 1953 pontiac custom catalina. charles coker, 1953 pontiac tech advisor.

[Guest]

Not surprising given the relative autonomy the Divisions had back then.

I see no good reason why a reproduction 62-64 Chevy gas tank won't work on same year Olds and Buick,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm glad you left Pontiac out of that interchange!

Don

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

The bodies having shared design similarity is no guaranty that the filler neck and vent tubes of gas tanks will be in the right location on the tank to properly fit across brands. Sometimes tanks are close enough to being the same they can be adapted, sometimes not.

Jim

[joe_padavano]

...I see no good reason why a reproduction 62-64 Chevy gas tank won't work on same year Olds and Buick, but Hollander says no ...

I've found that Hollander is very conservative when it comes to interchanges. As an example, Hollander shows that the only disc brake spindles that fit 1969-72 Cutlasses are Cutlass spindles. I know from first-hand experience that any A-body spindle from those years will interchange, not just Cutlass spindles.

[Guest]

I've found that Hollander is very conservative when it comes to interchanges. As an example, Hollander shows that the only disc brake spindles that fit 1969-72 Cutlasses are Cutlass spindles. I know from first-hand experience that any A-body spindle from those years will interchange, not just Cutlass spindles.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes! That really holds true when it comes to steering boxes!

Don

[rocketraider]

Don, even we Oldsmobile heathen know that early-60s Pontiac tanks mount under the trunk floor, where the others mounted between the trunk well and axle!

And my Pontiac bud was so happy when he could finally get a repop filler neck-to-tank O-ring seal, so he could put more than 1/2 tank of fuel in his 64 GP! One cruise night we used to go to was about a 175 mile round trip for him. He'd have to stop and gas up every 60-70 miles...

[Guest]

Don, even we Oldsmobile heathen know that early-60s Pontiac tanks mount under the trunk floor, where the others mounted between the trunk well and axle!

And my Pontiac bud was so happy when he could finally get a repop filler neck-to-tank O-ring seal, so he could put more than 1/2 tank of fuel in his 64 GP! One cruise night we used to go to was about a 175 mile round trip for him. He'd have to stop and gas up every 60-70 miles...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have often wondered why Pontiac did that. It would seem to me a car with the tank in the Chevy-Olds-Buick location would have better weight distribution plus that deep well is much better for controlling bags of grocery's ect. from falling over. I wonder how hard it would be to graft a C-O-B floor section into the Pontiac. It would make less traction for the drag racer, but would have a advantage on a car for road racing. Pontiac did have a advantage over the front steer, dangerous X frame Chevy and the front steer non lower "A" arm with tension rod Buick, plus Pontiac had wide track.

Don

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have often wondered why Pontiac did that. It would seem to me a car with the tank in the Chevy-Olds-Buick location would have better weight distribution plus that deep well is much better for controlling bags of grocery's ect. from falling over. I wonder how hard it would be to graft a C-O-B floor section into the Pontiac. It would make less traction for the drag racer, but would have a advantage on a car for road racing. Pontiac did have a advantage over the front steer, dangerous X frame Chevy and the front steer non lower "A" arm with tension rod Buick, plus Pontiac had wide track.

Don

And how many people today are doing any kind of racing with any of the early 1960s cars? And "Wide Track?" A purely marketing gimmick. Just how much wider could the track of that era of Pontiac have been considering it had to fit in the same basic Fisher body used by the other brands? Half an inch or maybe one inch max?

[joe_padavano]

And how many people today are doing any kind of racing with any of the early 1960s cars? And "Wide Track?" A purely marketing gimmick. Just how much wider could the track of that era of Pontiac have been considering it had to fit in the same basic Fisher body used by the other brands? Half an inch or maybe one inch max?

Thank you! It amazes me how marketing BS like this gets ingrained as "fact". The one that surprises me most is the Oldsmobile "Rocket" engine designation. People to this day swear that the "Rocket" motors carry some mystical high performance connotation (despite the fact that every single Olds V8 built since 1949 was called "Rocket"). The marketing guy that came up with that for the 1949 model year deserved any bonus he got for it.

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

Thank you! It amazes me how marketing BS like this gets ingrained as "fact". The one that surprises me most is the Oldsmobile "Rocket" engine designation. People to this day swear that the "Rocket" motors carry some mystical high performance connotation (despite the fact that every single Olds V8 built since 1949 was called "Rocket"). The marketing guy that came up with that for the 1949 model year deserved any bonus he got for it.

What? You mean to say that there was not some secret metallurgy, carburetor, or camshaft that made a "Rocket Engine" unique and apart from all other cast iron, normally aspirated engines with internal rotating assemblies? Damn!

There are those who still believe those never built 50 mile to the gallon carburetors supposedly invented in the late 1940s actually existed and were secretly bought up by the gasoline refiners. The same crowd that buys the Brooklyn Bridge year after year!

[Guest]

And how many people today are doing any kind of racing with any of the early 1960s cars? And "Wide Track?" A purely marketing gimmick. Just how much wider could the track of that era of Pontiac have been considering it had to fit in the same basic Fisher body used by the other brands? Half an inch or maybe one inch max?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wider is Better

As most people in the Pontiac world know wide track was originally done on the 59 models because of a styling issue. Look how funny a 59-60 Chevy-Olds-Buick look on the narrow 58" track and only Cadillac escaped this because they used much bigger tires. Pontiac's GM at the time said these cars with a narrow old track looked like football players wearing ballet slippers. In 59 Pontiac found out by adding front and rear track the cars also handled much better so they were able to soften up the spring rate for a better ride and still keep roll at the same amount. My buddies with 59 Chevy's cured their problem by going to chrome reverse wheels, but wheel bearings suffered. In a Pontiac if you wanted to use wider wheels you add the width to the backspacing (which dosen't hurt the bearing as much. 59 Pontiac track is ft-63 7/8" rear 64". 1960 Pontiac is ft 64" and rear 64".

In 61 all GM lines bodies were down sized. A 61 Olds uses a track of 61" front and rear, a 61-62 Pontiac uses a 62.5 track front and rear. That makes a huge difference in suspension tuning. In 1963 the Pontiac jumps back to the 64" ft & rear tread.

Some people myself included who have raced GM "A" bodied cars (especially the 68-72 era with the engine set back further and use the shorter 112" wheelbase) have come to realize the bigger "B" body cars of the 61-62 era are not so bad because of front steering, large stability four link rear ends and in Pontiac's case a engine that sits way aft of the front axel centerline. All that means is the weight of these components is closer to be between the front and rear wheels. Pontiac's only problem is the tank location which hurts suspension tuning when fuel is burned off. That is why I asked the question about changing floors in the trunk.

I'm building a 62 Catalina for G/T and time attack, and I'm thinking better times than my "A" body 69 Pontiac. If I can get that fuel tank in the Olds location that would be even better and only leave me with only one shortfall- the 120" vs 112" wheelbase disadvantage which would hurt on a short course.

D.