Hagerty Review

[MikeJS]

Good day.

 

Weekly article link I get from Hagerty, this week it’s about “5 cars defying a cooling market”. Included are the ‘86-‘93 Rivieras…

 

”Whether you agree or not that these Buicks deserve a seat at the table with the other collector cars, it’s clear they’re no longer cheap used fare.”

Source: https://www.hagerty.com/media/market-trends/hagerty-insider/5-cars-posting-big-gains-despite-a-slow-market/?utm_source=SFMC&utm_medium=email&utm_content=MED_UN_NA_EML_UN_UN_WeekendRoadTrip&hashed_email=f472103ce9c29545ae77fe867876dcc74dd2d592f381f4083b4b20ffe9144d61&dtm_em=f472103ce9c29545ae77fe867876dcc74dd2d592f381f4083b4b20ffe9144d61

 

 

Later

[rocketraider]

Of the three GM E-cars of that time, the Riviera is clearly the best looking, and styling was the only thing distinguishing one from the other. Riviera was distinctive while Eldorado and Toronado styling was a little too derivative of their contemporary GM N-body cars.

 

By the time Oldsmobile realized the stubby 86-89 Toronado was killing the name, the gorgeous 90-92 long-tail styling came too late.

 

86-91 Eldorado had the advantage of being the halo Cadillac, but when sales dropped by almost 75% compared to the 1985 car Cadillac knew they had to do something quick- or as quick as things could be done at GM. Eldorado was able to live on.

 

It's what they got for listening to consultants who totally missed the mark.

 

The not-ready-for-prime-time electronic dashboards will ALWAYS keep me from owning any of these years E triplets.

[RivNut]

What % of these Rivieras had the electronic dash?  I’ve had/have two of these - a ‘93 and a ‘90.  The 90 has 116,000 miles on it and I’d back it out of the garage and drive it anywhere.  They’ve both been to numerous ROA events and have brought home a class award.  NEVER had a problem with a dash.  
 

I’ve also had a number of the ‘79 - ‘85 varieties. Great road cars if you live on flat land. Too bad that the 403 Olds motor from the 77-78 wasn’t used in those cars. The 5.0 liter (307 Olds) engine is probably the most anemic engine I’ve had in a car.  If I were younger and had $$$ to🔥, I’d build an ‘85 with a de-smogged 403. (Same 6.6 liter as the Smoky and the Bandit TransAm.).  

[XframeFX]

1 hour ago, RivNut said:

If I were younger and had $$$

. . . . . and space.

I miss my OT paychecks in retirement.

I'll always want a shop be it just a bench, shelves and drill press over my car projects. I can switch to smaller projects after down sizing. Ed's Bicycles!

[NTX5467]

I totally concur on the Olds 307 being one of the least powerful 165 horsepower motors GM built back then.  Especially in a B-body station wagon (EMPTY!).  Not sure how the Cutlass (with the "garbage truck" shifter in the console) did.  BTAIM

 

The '79 Toronado Trofeos were great looking cars, to me.  Add the 403 and they would be much better.  At the time, their multi-color instrument cluster was industry-leading.  When combined with the factory cell phone option, it could call the police to report itself stolen, from what the presenters said at the Dallas New Car Show that year.  The similar Eldo was a great looking car, too.

 

The "soft" Rivieras just did not trip my trigger.  NO problem with the powertrain's integrity and longevity, or the interior comfort, but that exterior styling could have been a bit better, to me.  But then I never was in their desired customer demographic then or now.

 

I'm waiting for the 1980s Riviera (converted) convertibles to fly upward from their $12K plateau.  I might not live that long.

 

Have fun!

NTX5467

[60FlatTop]

1 hour ago, NTX5467 said:

But then I never was in their desired customer demographic then or now.

 

I'm waiting for the 1980s Riviera (converted) convertibles to fly upward from their $12K plateau.  I might not live that long.

 

Yeah. when those sport coats with the patches on the elbow come back. Those mid '80s Rivieras reverberate "stodgy" just sitting there. I stop by the Rolls-Royce shop every couple of weeks and those cars are Bentley T-Type knock offs lacking the flair of the first generation Riviera. That series of Eldo's is right in there with them. The dash, fender lines, sight across the hood. Really makes one chuckle to be close to both.

[EmTee]

15 hours ago, NTX5467 said:

I totally concur on the Olds 307 being one of the least powerful 165 horsepower motors GM built back then. 

Yes, but the one in my '85 Delta 88 Royale was buttery smoooooth....

[gungeey]

52 minutes ago, EmTee said:

Yes, but the one in my '85 Delta 88 Royale was buttery smoooooth....

My 1st brand new car. I think $11500? Was pretty happy with it and it's 307

[rocketraider]

16 hours ago, NTX5467 said:

I totally concur on the Olds 307 being one of the least powerful 165 horsepower motors GM built back then.  Especially in a B-body station wagon (EMPTY!).  Not sure how the Cutlass (with the "garbage truck" shifter in the console) did. 

165 is being generous. The Y code 307 was credited with 140 hp at 4000 rpm. In its defense I would tell people the original 303ci Rocket made only 135 hp and in its day was considered the hottest thing on the road. But a 307 is hard to kill, as is a 260 (talk about a slug). They did have the same bottom end as the Olds 350 after all.

 

The code 9 307 as used in 83-84 Hurst/Olds and 85-87 442 (and rumored to have found its way into a few B wagons though I've never seen one) is a little rowdier at 180 rated hp thanks to a CR boost to 9:1 and a slightly different cam and exhaust. Still no barnburner and that horsepower was kind of out of range in normal driving. How often did full-size GM cars operate in the 4000 rpm range?

 

Given the emissions constraints those engines were under, I guess they did as well as could be expected. Certainly more reliable than the crude digital interfaces that controlled and monitored them. NASA grade, it wasn't.

[60FlatTop]

An automatic overdrive transmission really takes away from the driving experience in the 40-55 MPH range, especially on the 1980s to early 2000s cars. Manually dropping them into Drive when exiting the Expressway became my habit when I was commuting to work.

 

4,000 RPM. The only time I see that is when my stepper motor goes bad. These days I am always in the 1700-3200 range unless I am being a real Yahoo.

[telriv]

IF they would even be able to go to 4K RPM's!!!!

Most/many didn't.

 

Tom T.

[XframeFX]

8 hours ago, gungeey said:

My 1st brand new car. I think $11500? Was pretty happy with it and it's 307

For the same $$$, could've had a 4-Door - LOL😆

 

 

The "Dud Engine" for SBCs was that 305. In a 1981 Caprice wagon, better MPG w/cruise in direct drive than OD. In a 1985 GMC Van, cresting the top of a hill the 305 was screaming in 1st gear, barely made even though I made a "run" for it on the approach. With a friend driving, me as passenger and bringing attention to a steep hill up ahead, he didn't think it was necessary to make a run for it. Full stall, had to make a dangerous backup to turn around near the top and try again with more velocity!

Overdrive not an asset for the 305!😑

 

In the final years of those GMC Motor coaches, they switched to the Olds 403 without addressing the shallow final drive. I recall some yearning for the 455 in those 26' Units.

[NTX5467]

8 hours ago, rocketraider said:

165 is being generous. The Y code 307 was credited with 140 hp at 4000 rpm. In its defense I would tell people the original 303ci Rocket made only 135 hp and in its day was considered the hottest thing on the road. But a 307 is hard to kill, as is a 260 (talk about a slug). They did have the same bottom end as the Olds 350 after all.

 

The code 9 307 as used in 83-84 Hurst/Olds and 85-87 442 (and rumored to have found its way into a few B wagons though I've never seen one) is a little rowdier at 180 rated hp thanks to a CR boost to 9:1 and a slightly different cam and exhaust. Still no barnburner and that horsepower was kind of out of range in normal driving. How often did full-size GM cars operate in the 4000 rpm range?

 

Given the emissions constraints those engines were under, I guess they did as well as could be expected. Certainly more reliable than the crude digital interfaces that controlled and monitored them. NASA grade, it wasn't.

Definitely had to find some positives in order to sell an Olds 307 back then.  I suspect it had "more cam" and "more cfm in the carb" than the earlier 303 did, but that 303 was also pulling a deep low gear HydraMatic that got it out of the hole much quicker so the lack of low rpm torque was not really noticed.

 

We sold massive amounts of Caprice 305 4bbl cars, starting in 1977 model year.  They all ran well and were very good road cars in TX.  But going up Ranger Hill on I-20 headed toward Abilene, they were no match for a 400cid Pontiac 2bbl with highway gears.

 

As to pickup trucks, our guys were good about putting the rear axle ratio in perspective to the use of the pickup truck.  Few other dealers did that, by observation, especially after fuel economy became more of an issue.  I once saw a '72 Dodge D-100 that a plumber brought in for an oil change.  He complained about it having no power.  The bed was full of misc. items.  It was a 400 2bbl with a 2.76 rear axle.  Needed a 3.21 to do things better.  Many times, the deeper gears would improve fuel economy on pickups that "worked".

 

I was always amazed at the mass of vac hoses on the Olds 307s.  A major undertaking to change valve cover gaskets, unless you could loosen the "harness" enough to snake them out from under it.  ALL emission control hoses, usually.  By comparison, the earlier 1972 Cutlass 350s, when "de-smogged" (as was propular back then) would usually do 20mpg on the highway after such things.  A big improvement from OEM specs.  Just made those '72 vintage Cutlasses more or a sweeter car.

 

Back to the Olds 307 in a mid-'80s Buick Estate Wagon . . . a customer had one sent to us to see if it was running as it should.  I took it on a test drive on the highway.  Going up a slight grade at 60mph, I suddenly went to WOT.  Transmission downshifted, carb opened up (heard by the secondaries' "roar"), but mph did not increase one bit.  I thought . . . this car, with 5 people, and towing a boat in Colorado would be a disaster . . . but that's what Buick built.  Yikes!  It WAS a very luxurious car, just needed "more engine".

[rocketraider]

IIRC flat rate on a 307 VC gasket job was either 7 or 8 hours. About an hour of that was driver's side. It would take up a mechanic's whole day provided nothing went wrong.

 

GM along with E P A seemed to have never considered that not every vehicle was consistently traveling flat terrain. The Rockville MD Zone Service office told me thruout the 80s they were having transmission warranty issues out the wazoo due to the mountainous terrain that office covered. The light-duty metric TurboHydraMatics didn't survive the West Virginia, western PA, MD and VA mountains well at all. Add in woefully underpowered engines and tall rear gearing in the effort to meet CAFE standards and there was a recipe for disaster. When the same thing happened in the Rocky Mountain states someone at GM and HydraMatic Division had to sit up and take notice.

[RivNut]

I experienced the woefully underpowered 307 in my 85 coupe on the way back home from the ROA meet in Harrisburg (Hershey) in 2010. Rather than return via Indianapolis and the route we took to Harrisburg, we opted to go to Gettysburg then take the scenic Blue Ridge Parkway home through West Virginia.  I was slowing 18 wheelers down when they got behind me when going uphill.  

[EmTee]

11 hours ago, NTX5467 said:

I was always amazed at the mass of vac hoses on the Olds 307s.

Yes, I dealt with those when I had to change the intake manifold gasket on my '85 Delta 88.  GM had a lot of trouble with intake manifolds leaking coolant at that time.  It was a straightforward task, but took hours as Glenn noted.  I used masking tape and a Sharpie to mark every hose prior to disassembly.  A number of them were hard or cracked, so I replaced nearly all of them at that time.  The other thing I recall about that engine was lifting the valley pan and seeing a roller cam!

[RivNut]

For more information on Oldsmobile engines than you can digest, look for (Google) “Oldsmobile FAQ”. You’ll find a link to Oldsmobile Junction. Anything and everything you’ll ever want to know about Oldsmobile engines.  i.e. Why is a 403 a small block but a 400 is a big block. What interchanges; what does not. 

[gungeey]

17 hours ago, XframeFX said:

For the same $$$, could've had a 4-Door - LOL😆

 

I went to get the Grand National but thought the seats were crap. 

Besides, the LeSabre was a "Collectors Edition" 🏆 🏆 🏆 😆 

[NTX5467]

The first OEM applications for the THM200 was on A/G platforms with 4cyl or V-6 motors.  In other words, it was originally designed for low-torque lighter vehicles.  Which also meant "lower power consumption" (as there was not a lot of power to consume from thoer earlier "MPG" engines).  When Buick put it behind their turbo motors, I knew it was an uncocked grenade, but with some beefing, it did pretty good, all things considered.  Still, an area Olds dealer's parts guy said that the THM200s sometimes grenaded racking off of the transport trucks, as to their longevity and build quality.  They stocked the individual clutch frictions, as their service rep would only pay for what was broken (as the transmissions were so new), whereas we stocked the GM overhaul kit as it was less expensive and had the same things in it, with ONE part number.

 

Obviously, somebody fixed the weaknesses and increased the strength as they later held up being modified GNs with no problems.  We didn't see that many warranty issues after the first year or so, but it appears that any of the performance GN people had already broken theirs' and were seeking out a non-dealership transmission shop instead.

 

I was shocked to see that little trans behind the modified Turbo cars, BUT it obviously had lower power consumption than a stronger THM350 or otherwise.  Then there was the PowerMaster brake booster that also seemed to come out of that Turbo program too.  Quite ingenious, but it was problematic and nobody "in the field" understood the "empty" brake fluid reservoir.  It was also used on the B-car wagons of several model years.  As a result, the salvage yards were quickly depleted of vac boosters on Caprice wagons.  There were some HydroBoost conversions done, too.

 

Years later, TCI started selling some beefier internals such that a 454 Chevy street rod could use them successfully, on the OD models.

 

THEN . . . GM changed the order codes for "3 Speed Automatic" from M38 (THM350) to MX0 for "3-speed automatic" so we didn't know which transmission would be installed in a '78 Caprice 305 4bbl.  Which generated some customer concerns due to a loss of shift smoothness, by comparison.  A minor concern as our customers loved those Caprice 305 4bbls.

 

As good as the THM Division's reputation might have been, their products made us a lot of warranty money.  In later years, the Service Replacement Transmission Assembly (SRTA) GM crate reman transmissions made us lots of money, not related to the gear ratio spread between 1-2, but from things like "lack of lube to the rear tailshaft area when running in "D" rather than "OD" at lower speeds.  You had to know the Julian date of when the trans was built to know what parts would be needed!  At one time, our transmission guy had 3 lifts and 4 stalls as we had that much volume in doing SRTA THM700s.  3-4 a day! 

 

And now, decades later, there are more warranty transmission issues than we could have foreseen back then!  But like back then, it was not just GM having issues that way.  Most of the recent issues seem, from what I could tell, are in the programming of the transmission.  Apparently there are some aftermarket programs which let the transmission work "more normally" than GM desired, with the end result that after the vehicle gets out of warranty, some customers get the aftermarket programs installed and we never see them again, as they have not more transmission-related performance issues any more!  In driving them, it's as if they have major inputs buffered far too much (obviously to protect the transmission from itself??), which causes other issues that we see and are addressed with TSB re-programs that don't really work.  The issue with THAT is that they probably can't change the program too much, which can be related to EPA emissions and MPG certifications, without re-certifying the vehicles.  But as long as GM pays the bills, we had to do what they said to do, as the customers saw little change and still were not pleased.

 

From what I could see, they are scabbing trying to meet EPA regulations via how the transmission does its work.  The original Dex VI fluid for the 6-speeds was originally semi-syn, but became full-syn later on due to apparent heat issues from torque converter modulation of the lock-up clutch.  Then came the 8+ speeds and TWO other new ATFs, one with Mobil's name on it.  "LV" for "low viscosity"?  When ATF in general is close to 10W viscosity?  Must be some trick friction modifiers in that fluid, too!

 

When we got the 8-spee automatics, I always suspected it was a ZF-licensed product, but in more recent times, I realized it is not.  Although the Chrysler ZF transmission have some similar service issues, it seems.  The difference in the GM 8-speeds is that some of the valve body functions are BEFORE the gearset?  Reason is that their design can result in quicker shift executions, which CAN affect cars operating under race conditions on that German race track everybody always talks about.  Where a nanosecond longer shift time might mean the difference in having the crown that year or not.  Quicker shifts due to shorter tubes/fluid circuits, it appears.  AND . . . those 6+ speed automatics weigh past 200lbs!  Lots of rotating mass in there!

 

Sorry for the length . . .

NTX5467

[rocketraider]

The roller cam 307 was a result of E P A forced oil reformulation. Olds had enough experience with "soft metal" cam failures in the 50s that they knew losing the high pressure oil additives was going to make problems. It took Chevrolet a little longer. You'd think with the small block's (especially 305) notorious "soft cam" issues they'd have gone roller earlier.

 

E P A apparently reasoned that an expensive cam failure carried less weight than the remote possibility of a high pressure oil additive poisoning an emissions control device, i.e., catalytic converter.

 

Not sure if the 1985 307 B cars or later wagons got them, but the roller cam engines in the G body cars got stainless steel "header" exhaust manifolds. Whether they helped or hindered, who knows. But those engines needed all the help they could get!

 

[XframeFX]

2 hours ago, gungeey said:

I went to get the Grand National but thought the seats were crap.

Worst seats were in a '69 Firebird I purchased from the original Owner back in the 70s.

 

Ordering a new '87 Grand National back in 1986/87 was not for the faint of heart. Had battles with what turned out to be a crooked dealer on the 1st order (fine print). Then tried again with a 2nd order for $5K more and less options!

Today, I can't find any pictures of my 1st New Car during my 13 years test driving it as a daily driver. Nothing special, can pick it apart with its numerous design and manufacturing flaws  which made the seats OK by comparison.

Turbo-Regal hype today, Fast & Furious, I don't get it. Yes, a 2-door LeSabre would've been a better 80s car long term.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 16, 2023 by XframeFX (see edit history)

[60FlatTop]

2 hours ago, NTX5467 said:

I always suspected it was a ZF-licensed product, but in more recent times, I realized it is not. 

I was thinking ZF as I read up to this comment. The ZF HP6 in my BMW was so close to my triple turbine '60 Dynaflow I had to work to tell them apart in boulevard driving. I could feel a downshift in the ZF. That was about it.

 

Now that the 1999 and 2000s are aging out of the EPA emissions grip I might get temped by a Jaguar XK8. Buying one of those Jaguars leaves you affected the rest of your life. BMW is close but in my case I want an older one of those.

 

The EPA might push me out of my penchant for ~15 year old cars and into "old" cars, like 25 years.

[RivNut]

Anyone beside me driving a car with a CVT transmission? (CVT = continually variable transmission). 
Driving our 2020 Buick Encore GX with a CTV reminds me of the Dynaflow in my 1963 Riviera - no up shifts or downshifts, always in the proper gear. 

 

[NTX5467]

In the several Chargers I've rented with the ZF 8-speed, I was impressed with how smooth it operated.  Just a "RCH" more accel pressure and it downshifted, rpm increase a few hundred rpm, ease past the slower vehicle, hit "Resume" on the cruise, and "done" and back to enjoying the drive.  On the GM 8-speeds, after the first few shifts, nothing left to feel, as if they were invisible.  I'm thinking that the main reason these newer automatics fail is their OEM programming more than anything else.  Our heavy line shop foreman took a troublesome 6-speed (when they were all we had) on a test drive with the GM scan tool laptop hooked up.  He noticed that going up a mild hill, the torque converter was in "50% slip" mode!  That was when we were having lots of torque converter issues.  AND those torque converters must weigh 60lbs or so!  Instead of modifying the software, they beefed-up the torque converter.  Makes one wonder who's calling the shots there?  I have read many glowing reports of how great the ZF 8-speed is in performance and durability, so any USA OEM having transmission issues with that transmission raise questions to me.

 

We saw some of the 305 cam issues, but not quite as many as some others did, apparently.  We saw more '78 vintage 305s need a valve job at 30K miles from cyl head issues on their then-new "lightweight" casting cyl heads.  But like other warranty issues, once the main spike in numbers went down (on the backside of the bell curve), that was it.  Or the remaining vehicles had miled-out of the OEM warranty.

 

As "bad" as the warranty issues were back then, outside of loosing customers for the carlines, those warranty repairs generated a good bit of cash flow into the dealers.  But at what ultimate cost?  As long as the dealers did their job of keeping the customers feeling like they were doing all they could do, the customers usually stayed around.  Yet Oldsmobile customers expected better from their cars, I suspect.  Chevy owners probably suspected that everybody was having issues.  As Buick owners would usually trade the car at 3yrs old and get another one, by observation.  Also, it seemed that GM could get away with those component failures, but if it had been Chrysler, they would have been out of business from all of the negative publicity.  The "power" of General Motors back then.

 

NTX5467

[pfloro]

4 hours ago, RivNut said:

Anyone beside me driving a car with a CVT transmission? (CVT = continually variable transmission). 
Driving our 2020 Buick Encore GX with a CTV reminds me of the Dynaflow in my 1963 Riviera - no up shifts or downshifts, always in the proper gear. 

 

 

Although I don't own a CVT equipped vehicle, I've driven ones from a few manufacturers (all with 4 cylinder engines).

I found all of them to be fine for sedate "motoring" but they cause the engines to get a bit buzzy under hard acceleration.

I don't miss the shift points which can be annoying given today's 6 (or more) speed automatic transmissions.  In our 2016

Madza CX-5, the car's computer reduces engine power during the 1-2 shift event.  This occurs at any throttle opening. 

It's as though the driver did a "lift foot" during the shift event.  When the shift event has completed, engine power resumes.

I understand why this has been engineered into the transmission (longevity of the frictions) but I don't like it at all.  My mom's

old 2005 Malibu with a V6 and 4 speed auto also did this during the 1-2 shift but only if near WOT.  I didn't have a problem with that design. 

 

One of the functions which Subaru has designed into their CVTs is something called "Hill Descent" control.  It allows the

driver to set a maximum speed while on descents.   The CVT (as instructed by the car's computer) varies the ratio so that

the selected speed can be maintained.   It immediately reminded of the Triple Turbine's Grade Retard feature...!  Of course, the GR

function wasn't as sophisticated and from what I've learned, it was abused by drivers thinking it was the same as the "L" range

in Twin Turbine Dynaflow units...  After a few "GR" starts, the Flight Pitch's seals were toast...!

 

Paul

Edited October 17, 2023 by pfloro (see edit history)

[NTX5467]

Grade Retard was also a feature of the Chevy TurboGlide.  IT was probably a Chevy version of DynaFlow as it was "on the converter" for acceleration, passing, and such.  A huge amount of heat was generated as the stator in the converter uses the fluid to flow against itself for the retarding functions.  IF the units were used normally, they lasted a long time.  My uncle had a '61 Impala 283 that he bought new, which had a TG in it.  It ran well and never "shifted".

 

The recent Nissan Altimas I've rented had CVTs in them.  They did well.  The interesting thing is that there are several pre-programmed "gears" in the software.  When depressing the accel pedal, there are also "detents" which signal a downshift into a lower gear position.  There seems to be a max torque limit the CVT can handle.  Nissans have it but Infinitis use normal geared transmissions. 

 

Hill Descent Control was introduced on BMW X5s, as I recall.  At a consumer ride/drive event we went to, their method of demonstrating it was to drive up a ramp, then over the top of a secured tractor trailer trailer, then down the other side.  Quite a ride!!!  If the driver touches the brake pedal, it disengages.  Seems like it was set for a max speed downhill of 10mph?

 

When engines started to have more than 200 horsepower (when that much power was perceived to be the limit which a fwd vehicle could have, possibly due to the fact that all of the fwd automatic transaxles were built to that limit, a new tweak of the software to allow such higher power and deliver a smooooth shift.  That software tweak was to retard the spark timing during the shifts, to decrease or eliminate "shift shock" in the transmission.  This was in about 1982.  As the ECM knew what the transmission was doing, the tweak to decrease the ignition advance during the split second the transmission shifted just took some extra "code" to make that happen.  Still used with the modern 8+ speeds, too!  On a newer Chevy pickup, on partr throttle acceleration, you can hear the exhaust get quiet a second before the shift and stay quiet for a second after the shift, as the rate of deceleration does not decrease.  It can be heard best during warm-up, when accelerating from a stop, by observation.

 

Take care,

NTX5467

[rocketraider]

Modern multi-ratio transmissions are programmed to keep an engine in its most efficient emissions range, not in its most efficient performance range. It's a travesty when emissions above all else drives everything about vehicle design. We're left with cramped, uncomfortable vehicles that are overly complicated and expensive to fix when the warranty's out.

 

Willis' comments about the 200 transmission behind the Turbo V6 recalled a conversation with the Rockville rep. The HydraMatic people were claiming they couldn't build a transmission that could hold up behind the Turbo engine.

 

He and I got a good laugh over that, because only a few years earlier HydraMatic Division was building transmissions that could hold up under anything any GM big-block could throw at them. Wasn't that they couldn't build a transmission, it was that the bean counters wouldn't let them until the warranty costs hit the stratosphere.

 

A buddy ordered a 1980 TransAM shortly after we both hired on at the powerplant (we're both retired now if that says anything). It was a standard TransAM 301 with metric transmission. Three days after taking delivery the transmission failed. Dealer repaired under warranty, and I think the Pontiac Zone rep would only pay for the failure parts. 

 

It failed again at about 9000 miles and the entire transmission was replaced that time (under some loud pressure from him).

 

Less than a year later that unit failed and my bud bought a junkyard THM350, had it overhauled and pulled the 200 out for good. That 350 has been in the car, trouble free, for 41 years.

[60FlatTop]

14 hours ago, pfloro said:

fine for sedate "motoring" but they cause the engines to get a bit buzzy under hard acceleration.

It is quite noticeable when you are driving sedately down a two lane country road at just under 60 MPH in your 60+ year old 4,000 pound, 325 HP, 400 C. I. V8 Dynaflow and one of those passes with a harsh buzzing in a cloud of sulfur smells. Makes me wonder if they are going to break something.

 

"Old car! I can't follow that thing."

 

[gungeey]

20 minutes ago, 60FlatTop said:

 

 

Crop dusting? 🤠

[XframeFX]

On 10/16/2023 at 12:26 PM, 60FlatTop said:

The ZF HP6 in my BMW was so close to my triple turbine '60 Dynaflow I had to work to tell them apart in boulevard driving

Bernie, Triple Turbine? Seen one once at Barrett Jackson. All I could see was the column Shifter Quadrant. What's it like beyond comparing it to a ZF 6HP? More responsive than the "DynaSlow"?

As for the 6HP, a good tranny I'm sure but not keen in that every gear is through a mesh, no direct drive. Strange?

 

I have ZF's 8HP75 Hybrid in my Wrangler 4XE. A traction motor and dual clutch in-place of the torque converter. After 2 years, still no details on how this transmission functions. Just intro overviews and cut-aways. ZF and FCA are Mum on this product.

[XframeFX]

On 10/16/2023 at 1:56 PM, RivNut said:

Anyone beside me driving a car with a CVT transmission?

My wife's Subaru Boxer has what they call "Lineartronic CVT" It is a Pulley CVT using a chain. Typical of many CVTs, any positive attributes from the engine is lost in the CVT, lacks throttle response. Ideal as a city run-about and has a 10-year warranty.

There are many types of CVTs. Early applications had steep axles ratios (5.13:1) because the CVT didn't have much underdrive but had an equal amount of overdrive. DAF cars could race in reverse on frozen lakes!

I am more impressed with Subaru's Torsen differential but it is only available on the WRX. An Option on Dodge RAMs as well as others.

 

[NTX5467]

On the Nissan Altimas (when they were new, about 5 yrs ago) worked just fine with their 4 cyl engine.  If you just drove them normal, things worked well.  I'm not sure if their EPA mileage was high enough that they didn't need the "high tech" startstop software of is they were too cost conscious to use it?  In any event, a nice-driving car with good handling and power.

 

I think they programmed things so that a small "shift" happened, which could be felt by the driver so that they knew what was going on.  With the little detents in the throttle pedal going along with that deal.  Make the passengers/driver feel like it's a normal automatic transmission when it isn't.

 

NTX5467

[60FlatTop]

My ZF was in a BMW 760 with a V12, weighing 4900 pounds. It was Dynaflow smooth. I am pretty much a boulevard driver. Back in the early 1960s I read an article about training chauffeurs They were required to drive with a full glass of water on the dash without spilling. I took that to heart and I can pour the power on without a hearty Hi Ho and waving a ten gallon hat out the window.

The BMW was my German Buick. A couple of Jaguars have been my British Buicks.. And I have been know to exit a Silver Cloud I, close the door, and state "A Buick Roadmaster is a fine car".

"Dynaslow" must be for someone with a longer memory than mine. There is nothing show about my '60 Electra. When I bought my first '60 Buick, an Invicta, my Dad had already said "No 327's or 409's. You are not got out racing with your car". We had a 1/4 mile painted off at the end of our road. The '60 would turn just a hair over 90 MPH at the second line. The current one might do a little better because I am a little better tuner upper and the deer have moved away after a house was built at the end of the road. I might be 4 miles less cautious.

 

6 hours ago, gungeey said:

Crop dusting? 🤠

The dust is faintly settling in this cornfield. Just a little soil dust to help the dew stick to the leaves, nothing with a skull and cross bone.

 

Opps! I left something out. Back in the 1990s my wife and I went out to dinner on a double date with a friend in his Silver Shadow. He is a little froggy on the gas pedal. We got home and I asked my wife what she thought of her ride in the Rolls. She told me it didn't seem to feel as smooth as my Buicks. Good girl.

Edited October 17, 2023 by 60FlatTop (see edit history)

[pfloro]

On 10/14/2023 at 2:29 PM, NTX5467 said:

I totally concur on the Olds 307 being one of the least powerful 165 horsepower motors GM built back then. 

 

Since the under powered Olds 307 has been "featured" in this topic, I want to add a little chuckle to the discussion.

 

I ordered my 1984 Toronado with the 307.   I quickly discovered that it lacked power but since I generally sedately "motor" and not drive, it was never really a problem.

A friend wondered at what RPM the engine was turning while on a level highway cruise.  SO..., I hooked up a tach and read the RPM. 

While traveling at 60MPH on a level highway (A/C off, in OD (~.70), TCC locked), the engine was loafing along at 1500 RPM...!  The standard final drive ratio was 2.76 and the tires

were the optional P225-70R-15s...  It was barely turning above high idle...!  I wasn't too surprised and then knew why this 307 racked up 200,000 miles with only a timing gear set replacement (@ ~ 150,000).

 

***

 

It was a very reliable engine and as long as the CCC (Computer Command Control) system was in order and the Rochester E4MC was set up properly, the engine was smooth under all conditions.

I did have an unusual thing happen (in my experience) somewhere in the 150,000 mile period,  The lower (exposed) head bolt at the left rear bank sheared off at the bolt head.  I noticed a little coolant weeping in

that area.  Fortunately, I was easily able to work the bolt out and simply installed a new head bolt.  I think the torque spec was at least 100 ft/lbs.  The coolant weep stopped and I never had another problem...

 

Paul

 

 

 

Edited October 18, 2023 by pfloro (see edit history)

[60FlatTop]

Nice to know I am not the only one using the tilde.

[NTX5467]

For the record, I always liked that body series of Toro and Eldo much better than the similar Rivieras.  The noted rpm at 70mph was typical of the time.  Even the current GM cars and trucks are at the 1700rpm, usually, but with a deeper low gear, they move out quicker off-idle yet still hit that lower cruising rpm level.

 

Knowing the heritage of the Olds V-8, getting one to 200K miles with normal maintenance should be an easy thing to do.  If I can get a small block Chevy past 500K miles, an Olds should be able to do much more than that, I suspect.  When I replaced the timing chain at 92K miles (for insurance purposes and to upgrade the cam a bit), I put in a Cloyes Plus Roller chain set rather than a stock replacement kit.

 

Nice looking car!  In the "traditional luxury" orientation of things.

 

Take care,

NTX5467

[NTX5467]

21 hours ago, 60FlatTop said:

My ZF was in a BMW 760 with a V12, weighing 4900 pounds. It was Dynaflow smooth. I am pretty much a boulevard driver. Back in the early 1960s I read an article about training chauffeurs They were required to drive with a full glass of water on the dash without spilling. I took that to heart and I can pour the power on without a hearty Hi Ho and waving a ten gallon hat out the window.

The BMW was my German Buick. A couple of Jaguars have been my British Buicks.. And I have been know to exit a Silver Cloud I, close the door, and state "A Buick Roadmaster is a fine car".

"Dynaslow" must be for someone with a longer memory than mine. There is nothing show about my '60 Electra. When I bought my first '60 Buick, an Invicta, my Dad had already said "No 327's or 409's. You are not got out racing with your car". We had a 1/4 mile painted off at the end of our road. The '60 would turn just a hair over 90 MPH at the second line. The current one might do a little better because I am a little better tuner upper and the deer have moved away after a house was built at the end of the road. I might be 4 miles less cautious.

 

The dust is faintly settling in this cornfield. Just a little soil dust to help the dew stick to the leaves, nothing with a skull and cross bone.

 

Opps! I left something out. Back in the 1990s my wife and I went out to dinner on a double date with a friend in his Silver Shadow. He is a little froggy on the gas pedal. We got home and I asked my wife what she thought of her ride in the Rolls. She told me it didn't seem to feel as smooth as my Buicks. Good girl.

One time back in about 1983, I walked across the service drive of the local Porsche+Audi dealer to get to the parts department.  I waksed past a 924 that had been hammered and it was only a few years old.  I thought "Some people buy a Porsche and treat it like a Volkswagen".  Similarly "Some people buy a Cadillac and treat it like a Chevy, then complain when it 'falls apart'".  Some people, by observation, do not understand "the machinery" and how to make it perform its best.  When they try to make it do something it was not really designed to do, it is "junk" (to them, as if THEY were the ones to bestow such a title blithely). 

 

The BEST driver/vehicle "partnerships" happen when the driver learns what the vehicle "likes" and then exploits those attributes to the mutual benefit of all, as to normal driving with some "verve" every so often.

 

Did you hear the story about how Rolls started to use the GM THM400 automatic, then tried to improve it?  PM me for details.

 

Take care,

NTX5467

[RivNut]

One performance improvement you can make to these cars (besides a de-smogged 403)  is to put the trans/axle from a V6 turbo car in it.  The V6 turbo transmission has a 3.36 final drive rather than the 2.76. Another reason the turbo cars are quicker.

[NTX5467]

The turbo cars probably had a looser torque converter, too.

[RivNut]

I don’t know about that, but they did have the lock up feature.  Any idea where you could find out about the stall speed of each transmission?