Buick 307 (5 Litre) Engines, are they Pigs ?

[Bill Stoneberg]

I have just gotten a 1988 Buick Station Wagon and after some work it runs and drives quite nicely. The problem I have is the thing is a pig, both in acceleration where it wont get out of the way of a Turtle and also at the gas pumps. It has the Quadrajet on it so I would expect it to have decent acceleration but it doesn't. It also will go 70 -75 but likes it much better at 60 -65.

I know these were the smog enhanced coporate motors built for the 55 mile speed limit,but they cant be as bad as this one seems to be can they ? Is there anything that I can do besides an engine transplant ? Would a carb rebuild help ?

[Smartin]

It was the height of smoggers. 307's are nothing to brag about <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> I don't know of much to help these things out.

Try looking around here:

www.realoldspower.com

since that is an olds motor......

[palbuick]

Hi Bill

Was nice to meet you at Flnt, sorry we couldn;t talk longer.

I had the same Estate wagon a 1988 wirh the 307 motor. A most embarassing car to drive, Busses would be me across the street from a red light. Not too bad on the Hwy at 60-65, and gas milage was about average, or below. I had seen one at the G S club meet with a 455 motor, was really a moving machine.

My wagon had 134K miles on it, the exhaust manifolds had warped and quite niosy.

nobody wanted to touch the repair of them, besides being very expensive.

If you really want a wagon, get one of the newer 94-95 Rosdmasters with the LT-1

motor.

JIm Schilf / palbuick@aol.com

[Terry29-26]

Bill:

I have both an 86 Electra and 89 LaSaber Wagons. The 86 has 427000 miles on it. Heads and pan have never been off it, would still be driveing it if a garde rail hadn't of run into the front of it.

To answer your question; They are not the hotest thing on the road but they are not dogs eather. Use to cruse the I system at 80 to 90 mph with no problems except cops. Oldest daughter got stoped for doing over 100 mph (cost a lot of her hard earned cash).

Pluged cat.converter will slow it down. check it first. Have gone through as many converters as tires??

Terry29-26

[The Old Guy]

Bill, is the 307 an Olds engine? If it is ,a 403 Olds is a direct bolt in, and will REALLY liven up your wagon.

[Guest Skyking]

Bill, I had an 83 Olds 88 with a 307 which wasn't bad at all. I don't know if it was the same engine, but I sold the car with 140,000 miles and it still was peppy. Maybe the year has something to do with it (more smog stuff?) I drive an 87 ElCamino now with a 305 and it has trouble getting out of it own way, and the mileage sucks.

[Bill Stoneberg]

Joe,

It is a Olds engine (and an OLD engine).

So a 403.... I may have to check into that.

Thanks for the hints.

[NTX5467]

Bill, I drove one of those wagons (but a few years earlier model) and it was not very enthusiastic to change speeds.

When those cars and engines were configured, the main orientations were fuel economy and not blazing power. Anytime you see a spark ignition gas motor that needs an auxiliary vacuum pump just to change the a/c vents, then there's a message there.

Most everyone I knew that had one of those Olds 307s in that general time frame consistently got mid to high 20s mpg on the highway. Which is better than the Chevy motors would get by a decent margin. Of course, it will have all of the Olds traits of long life and such, as others have mentioned. As also has been mentioned, the possibilities to swap in an Olds 350 or 403 are there.

For some reason, the Olds 307s in the full size cars did have issues with clogged cat converters back then. That combination was what we saw the most activity in with respect to changing the beads out in them.

When I first read the post at noon, I considered several things that might help some. One would be a V-6 torque converter for a little more stall speed at lower road speeds and still lock up for cruise. The other was a deeper rear axle, but the one under there now should be a 3.23 so it'd take a 3.73 to make any difference from what's in there now.

The other thing is the weight of the vehicle versus engine size. With two people aboard, the curb weight should be on the high side of 4500+ lbs, I suspect. Couple that with an anemic (as produced) engine of 307CID and a tight torque converter and that equation is more based toward "cruise/profile" than "tire smoking performance", unfortunately. Being so square of a vehicle is not a good thing for highway performance either.

I'm sure that there are some old fashioned hot rod tweaks that can be done to possibly perk things up to a more throttle responsive mode, but I wouldn't expect to be able to lay rubber very much.

On the PLUS side, those were extremely nice vehicle! Some of the nicest Buicks and GM cars of that body series--period!

As for the handling, add some polyurethane link bolt grommets on the front and maybe an aftermarket sway bar in the back. That way, you won't have to slow down so much for corners and therefore help keep the speed up. Email me for the link bolt kit part number.

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[Bill Stoneberg]

Willis,

I love the ride and driving of the car. The problem is the fac it wont pass a gas station and if it does, its real slow about doing it.

Your friends got Mid 20's for milage ? I would live to get better milage then my truck (12 -16). Last tank was all Hiway running 65 and I got just a hair better then 12.

I may be running rich because there are times I smell gas so am investigating that. But I thougt with the 3.23 rear end, I could do better then 12.

I am going to check the converter and see what its like.

Ah the joys of saving a car from a junkyard...