Memories Of The Old GM And Its Cars

stever

Yeah, I fixed that the other day after Fintail pointed it out. Thanks.

fintail

I am not debating the overall soundness of the 3800, which has pretty much proven itself in service (maybe not for enthusiast driving), but..."Add labor of $200 for a 5-hour job."

Is this also where a nice 1800 sq ft house still costs 75K and $11/hr is considered upper middle class?

andre1969

Yeah, tell me about it! I think my mechanic's labor rate is something like $97 per hour. Body/paint work is cheaper, but I forget how much now.

tlong

Very interesting story, but what engine and other repairs did your bug require to last 235,000 miles?

Only to compare with the Vega story: Bought the '66 bug in 1974 for $670 with 63k miles on it. Drove it until 235k miles. Rebuilt engine at 106K. A couple of clutches, usual batteries, brakes, tires, one set of shocks, two clutch cables. No transmission work or other engine work. No starter or generator work. That's about it. No rust. Sold it for $700, which was $30 more than I paid after owning it for 18 years and driving it 172K miles.

andre1969

Just out of curiosity, did you do anything special to it to get that many miles out of the engine? I'd always heard that those Bugs usually needed a rebuild every 60-80,000 miles, but it was so cheap and easy to do that it was more like a maintenance item than a major repair.

imidazol97

Fintail. You're making it hard to deal with.

I don't know labor costs in your area. I suspect a real mechanic does it in a bout 3 hours. Backyard can do it in 5 or less especially if they've done one before.

At first the pricing of repairs was held very high because dealers saw it as an opportunity like a "good crisis." Then it became reality that charging a lot was a crisis in their reputation and the prices seem to drop to reality. I worked on one for a neighbor and it took me 8-hours. I work sssslowlyyyyy.

An 1800 Sq. Ft. house will be $140,000. In my work experience $11 doesn't draw interest.

andre1969

At first the pricing of repairs was held very high because dealers saw it as an opportunity like a "good crisis." Then it became reality that charging a lot was a crisis in their reputation and the prices seem to drop to reality. I worked on one for a neighbor and it took me 8-hours. I work sssslowlyyyyy.

Since you're good at working on that kind of stuff, wanna come over and help me get my '76 LeMans to the point that it will start up on a consistent basis? :P

An 1800 Sq. Ft. house will be $140,000. In my work experience

At the rate prices are dropping in my neck of the woods, I might see them down to that, soon!

fintail

I suppose an under the table mechanic might charge that much, yeah. But at a reputable shop...not anywhere near that where I live. I guess that's a hard job to do wrong, so there's not so much to worry about having it done on the side.

My house and wage comments were in jest

tomcatt630

It is a picture of red 1961 Buick in post #47. I know, since my Grandparents had 1961, 65, 69 and 73 Electras.

The front pontoons are cool, shows how much they used to change cars sheet metal back then. Imagine the cost to do so now.

hpmctorque

The 1.8 four cylinder was an Opel engine that was sourced in Brazil,, and was offered in naturally aspirated and turbo form, I believe.

imidazol97

>My house and wage comments were in jest

Understand.

> guess that's a hard job to do wrong

Once you've done one it's easy to keep stuff straight. I actually labelled screws and bolts in categories and organized everything and took digital photos.

imidazol97

>in Brazil,, and was offered in naturally aspirated and turbo form, I believe.

That sounds right. I had the normal form. Required a timing belt for maintenance at about 60K IIRC.

Great motor for my purposes.

imidazol97

>point that it will start up on a consistent basis?

Fire, fuel, and air are what are needed along with cranking from a starter motor. I say check the coil. Is that one inside the distributor cap: HEI ignition?

berri

I don't know labor costs in your area. I suspect a real mechanic does it in a bout 3 hours

But they will still "flat rate" it by the book at 5 hours and rip you around a C -note per hour on the inflated book rate.

andre1969

One of my friends had mentioned that on these cars, there was a built-in weak spot in the rotor. It's designed to fail first, protecting more expensive components such as the cap and coil. And yeah, it does have the HEI ignition, the kind that's built into the cap.

Basically, sometimes it starts and sometimes it doesn't. It had been running fine last week, say from around Wednesday through Sunday. I even drove it to Baltimore and back on Sunday, ran some errands, got gas and such, and it never failed to re-start. But then I let it sit Monday, and Tuesday it wouldn't start. I can't remember if I messed with it any on Wednesday morning, but that evening it fired up without even touching the gas pedal. Yesterday, it started in the morning and in the evening. I didn't try it this morning, but this afternoon, it was back to its old tricks.

I figure I'll try the rotor first, and then go from there. FWIW, the rotor and inside of the cap looked good, but I guess they can still get little hairline fractures and such.

Maybe I need to ditch the thing and start getting into classic Hondas or Toyotas or something! :P

tlong

Just out of curiosity, did you do anything special to it to get that many miles out of the engine? I'd always heard that those Bugs usually needed a rebuild every 60-80,000 miles, but it was so cheap and easy to do that it was more like a maintenance item than a major repair.

Bugs could go over 100K if taken care of. Change oil every 3K miles and keep the valves adjusted every 3K miles. That would be high maintenance requirements by today's car standards, but in those days 100K was a lot of miles on a car. In contrast the Vega engine usually died at under 60K miles due to aluminum/steel alloy and corrosion issues from what I've read, but most American cars did better than that. Were most GM engines of the 1970's able to go at least 100K miles if treated well, or did it vary a lot by engine? (not intended as a hostile question, just curious)

andre1969

Were most GM engines of the 1970's able to go at least 100K miles if treated well?

I think most GM engines of the 1970's could last a long time, provided you took care of them, but there were some weak spots here and there...

Buick 231 V-6. This engine was junk back in the 1970's. It was too lightweight, and had a bunch of right-angle oil passages that were easily clogged. It was basically crap up through 1984, but got a new, redesigned block in 1985 and went from being one of GM's worst engines to one of its best. I imagine the same would hold true for the little 198 variant that was offered in 1978-79 on the Century/Regal

Pontiac 301 V-8. This was also a lightweight engine, too light to be durable given the technology of the 1970's. It weighed around 452 pounds, compared to around 500 for a Ford 302, 525-550 for a Mopar smallblock, and 575 for a Chevy smallblock. I dunno though, how much something like an Olds, Buick, or Pontiac 350 would've weighed. The 301 tended to spin bearings, throw rods, all that good stuff. There was a 265 CID variant offered in 1980-81 though that wasn't too bad. I hear it didn't have enough power to hurt itself!

Chevy smallblock V-8. These tended to have weak bottom ends. Camshafts were a common problem. I think the 307 offered in the early 70's was the worst, because it had a "soft" block? But supposedly the 305 and 350 could die pretty early, too. On the plus side, they were cheap to fix, or even replace. There was also a 400 smallblock that had siamesed cylinders (no water jacket between them), which could lead to uneven heat dissipation, stress on the block as parts of it heated and cooled differently, etc. I will say though, that I had an '86 Monte Carlo that my Mom bought new. It made it to 192,000 miles, when I got t-boned in it. And I have a 1985 Silverado that has about 130,000 miles on it, that my Granddad bought new. I dunno if GM improved the durability of the 305 in the 80's or not.

Vega 4-cyl. 'nuff said.

Pontiac 455: Yes, believe it or not, these engines could have problems. Pontiac didn't have a "true" big-block engine, like Chevy, Olds, and Buick did. Instead, Pontiac's engine was more of a "medium" block. It debuted for 1955, as a 287 CID or so, then got enlarged to around 316, 347, 370, 389, and 400 CID. There was a version of it that started off as a 421 then went to 428 and finally 455. I thin it was just a raised deck version of the same block, though. The 455 was a good performer, until emissions controls choked it off, but it wasn't as durable as a "true" big block like a Buick or Olds 455, or the Chevy 454.

Olds 403. This engine was as big as the Olds smallblock got. It was a good engine, pretty durable, but like the Chevy 400, its cylinders were siamesed. The Olds engine was sturdier than the Chevy engine, but if you didn't keep up on coolant changes and such, you would pay the penalty. The Olds 350 was a much more durable engine.

Cadillac 425 V-8. This was essentially a smaller version of the 500, but there were some cost cutting moves involved. I think they stamped the rocker arms really cheap, or did something similar like that, which made something in the heads fail prematurely.

I know that sounds like a lot of engines! I'd say the only ones that were out and out crap though were the Pontiac 301, Buick 231, and Vega 4-cyl. The others just weren't GM's best offerings. In contrast, Chevy's big-block, which comprised the 396/402/454, was a good engine. So was the Pontiac 350/400, although in later years they didn't take well to emissions controls. The Olds 260 and 350 were good engines, although the 260 was underpowered. Buick's 350 was good. So were the Olds and Buick big-blocks. Chevy's 250 inline-6 was pretty good. And while the smallblock V-8's had issues, it seems like Chevy's 200 V-6 from 1978, and its 229 enlargement for 1980, were good engines. They weren't as smooth as the Buick 231, but much more reliable. The Cadillac 472 and 500 were good engines, too.

And even though I mentioned the Caddy 425, Pontiac 455, Chevy smallblock, and Olds 403 as having weak spots, I don't think I'd be afraid to own one, provided it seemed like it had been taken care of. I've even had Pontiac fans tell me the 301 isn't TOO bad, as long as you keep up on maintenance and don't drive it too hard.

isellhondas

Post 47 doesn't have a photo at least not one that myu computer pulls up.

That early post I think # 4 definatly shows a 1960 Buick Wagon.

andre1969

Post #47 was one I tried to put up, to show how a '61 differed from the '60 in Steve's old family photo19. It's a red '61 Buick wagon from the GM photostore, so maybe there's some kind of copyright issue going on keeping some computers from seeing it?

If you do a google image search for "1961 Buick wagon", it's the first image that pops up. The second image, from "www.bringatrailer.com" was one I tried to post earlier, unsuccessfully.

Oh, and if you google "1976 Pontiac LeMans", my car pops up twice on the first page, and twice on the second. :shades:

stever

I'm seeing the red Buick in Post #47 fine.

imidazol97

>Tuesday it wouldn't start.

Carry a spare spark plug and pull off a wire and lay the plug on the block for a ground while someone cranks. See how blue the spark is.

What carb is it? Quadrajet? They could seep gasoline out through a plug from manufacturing. I believe it seeped into the intake manifold. Leaves fuel low in bowl and raw gas sitting in the intake to be sucked in when it does start. When car finally starts the exhaust is rich like it was over choked.

lemko

They must've done something right with the Olds 307 from my experience and that of my friends as it'll keep going and going long after the Energizer Bunny is dead. The Buick 350 in my Special Deluxe was also a very durable engine. I really liked the Olds 403 and never knew there'd be a problem with it. Well, I maintain my car religiously, so I guess I'd never have a problem with most of the engines listed.

Now, if there was an engine I thought was a POS, it would be the 3.1 V-6 that was in my girlfriend's 1999 Olds Cutlass sedan. That engine always seemed to have cooling system issues.

isellhondas

The Buick 350 was a great engine.

Like many cars of that era the nylon timing gears would wear out after about 75,000 miles. Not that big of a deal.

Olds 403's were strong and long lasting. The 3.1's weren't that good.

hpmctorque

"Were most GM engines of the 1970's able to go at least 100K miles if treated well..."

The short answer is, yes, as long as they were treated well.

fintail

I don't have many family memories of GM. My parents were not really brand loyal, so we didn't have a solid string of anything. In the 80s we had a Ciera and a S10 Blazer...the Ciera was OK enough, I don't recall any problems with it, but even as a kid I could tell it wasn't assembled very carefully - had a weird squeak in the dashboard from new, and the wire wheel hubcaps made noise. The S10 Blazer was a hunk of junk and when it was 5 years old it seemed pretty crapped out.

My maternal grandmother had a couple of Olds's she liked, my paternal grandfather liked Caddy after Chrysler moved away from real barges... my paternal grandmother had a couple of Cavaliers as her final cars, and my paternal grandfather liked Corvairs and Chevy vans - all but a couple vans came before I was born. Nothing to really stir my sentiments.

I do remember a kid in high school (early 90s) had a very nice 64 Impala that I liked a lot, all stock, black 2 door HT with red interior.

akjbmw

I believe a significant part of the engine longevity issue is about rpms.
My brother drove his early seventies VW like the older chevy inline six he had before it. He shifted as soon as he could and lugged the VW all the time. It didn't last. I drove a '70 BMW 2002 for over 250K miles by keeping the engine happily spinning. When it was bent more than it was worth (rear ended in Marin County morning traffic) the valve guides were allowing about 700 miles per quart of oil.

Keep an eye on the oil pressure and let the oil do its job.

tomcatt630

One problem was that CAFE required more mileage out of big cars, so GM cut corners to rush small V8's, V6's and I4's to market.

Then, the buyers were a "test lab" for these engines, and bugs popped up.

It sounds harsh to loyalists and hobbyists, but GM should have done 'Corporate' motors as soon as smog laws were passed. Ford and Mopar already were set up this way and saved $$ and PR. May have upset muscle heads, but real buyers would have had more reliable cars, and no Bankruptcy!

imidazol97

> 'Corporate' motors as soon as smog laws were passed. Ford and Mopar already were set up this way and saved $$ and PR.

What had Ford and C done?

blh7068

"Chevy smallblock V-8. These tended to have weak bottom ends. Camshafts were a common problem. I think the 307 offered in the early 70's was the worst, because it had a "soft" block? But supposedly the 305 and 350 could die pretty early, too."

Wow- Ive never heard a bad thing about the chevy small blocks...at least those of the 60s and 70s...especially the 350. Quite interesting.

blh7068

"The Buick 350 was a great engine."

Ill second that. I had a 72 Skylark with a 350 2bbl....like the other Buick motors...lots of torque. A buddy of mine had a 72 'vert skylark with a '70 455 Buick motor in it... the smoke shows were amazing!

hpmctorque

"One problem was that CAFE required more mileage out of big cars, so GM cut corners to rush small V8's, V6's and I4's to market.

Then, the buyers were a "test lab" for these engines, and bugs popped up."

Excellent points. This may explain why the same company that made good and excellent engines in the '40s, '50s and '60s produced some miserable ones in the '70s and '80s.

hpmctorque

Let's not forget the role of improved lubricants in extending engine life. I think that synthetic oils, such as Mobil 1, can greatly extend engine life, by reducing friction and wear. Today's lubricants are so much better than those of decades past. Of course, higher operating temperatures require better oils, but I believe the new oils, especially synthetics, more than compensate for the greater needs of modern engines.

cadillacmike

The cooling system in the NorthStar is ruggedized to the point that that (sudden hose burst) is only problem you are going to encounter that will cause a instant total loss of coolant.

If a hose breaks, and last time i checked, all cars still use hoses to connect the radiator and heater cores to the engine, you are SOL in ANY other car.
.

xrunner2

Like many cars of that era the nylon timing gears would wear out after about 75,000 miles. Not that big of a deal.

Beg to differ. It was a big deal for me when nylon/plastic teeth wore, chain slipped and of course engine stopped immediately. Had far less than 75K miles on my 71 Firebird 400 and was driving in left lane of 6-lane freeway (3 each way). This was in a time way before cell phones. Had it towed to my garage, BIL diagnosed, I fixed with new all metal gear and new chain and new water pump. Stupid
engineering(?) by GM.

cadillacmike

The "Case Half" leak is true but all it caused was a slight oil leak, on forums dedicated to the models, most people with this just add an extra quart every 1500 miles or so. By 1998 or so, the castings were revised to cure this, and it was not in a high percentage of the engines.

I find it amusing that as recently as the late 90s Honda's still needed valve jobs, etc.

blh7068

"Let's not forget the role of improved lubricants in extending engine life. I think that synthetic oils, such as Mobil 1, can greatly extend engine life, by reducing friction and wear. Today's lubricants are so much better than those of decades past. Of course, higher operating temperatures require better oils, but I believe the new oils, especially synthetics, more than compensate for the greater needs of modern engines. "

Id agree...but other than the select vehicles that require it, I wonder how much of the auto population is using it vs traditional oil. Without researching, my gut says its far from mainstream. I realize I could be 100% incorrect here.

blh7068

"Had far less than 75K miles on my 71 Firebird 400 and was driving in left lane of 6-lane freeway (3 each way)."

Was your 'bird a Formula( dual scoops on hood)? I posted a pic of my 71 'bird a few pages back.

xrunner2

The "Case Half" leak is true but all it caused was a slight oil leak, on forums dedicated to the models, most people with this just add an extra quart every 1500 miles or so. By 1998 or so, the castings were revised to cure this, and it was not in a high percentage of the engines.

Just added an extra quart? Good GM engineering? Why did GM engineering not get it right the First time with the castings?

Over last couple decades, have heard numerous times of people complaining that their GMs need a quart of oil every 1K-1.5K miles AND there was no leaking. When they go back to dealers to complain, service person says that that oil consumption is within normal parameters and nothing is done.

xrunner2

Was your 'bird a Formula( dual scoops on hood)? I posted a pic of my 71 'bird a few pages back.

Yes. It was medium blue metallic in color. Also had a 71 Trans-Am 455 HO and 68 Firebird 400 all at same time.

blh7068

"Yes. It was medium blue metallic in color. Also had a 71 Trans-Am 455 HO and 68 Firebird 400 all at same time."

Wow- all remain highly desirable today...especially the TA.

Do you still have any of them?

imidazol97

>Stupid
engineering(?) by GM.

Actually it was done to quiet the noise from metal gears and the chains. The same people unhappy when the nylon (not plastic IIRC) gear wore were the ones who would complain about gear noise. :sick:

I understand being unhappy with a failure, but they usually gave forewaring. A Ford 351W I owned gave some signs of individual teeth having worn on the one gear. Later the chain slipped. I believe that was the car that left me saying I'd never own another Ford. Regrettably I won one in a contest a few years later.

But I digress from the topic and in lieu of a reminder from our gentle hosts, I'll slip my timing chain a notch on the worn gear to ask:

Were both gears nylon or just one of the timing gears?

OR GM could have used a timing belt like some other cars and required replacement every 60K miles for a few hundred bucks. :P

stever

I think part of the point was that all oils have gotten a lot better over the years, not just the synthetics.

Friends had a Ford Escort back in the 80's and they lost a nylon gear or sprocket before 50k. Left them shaking their heads when they discovered Ford was putting "plastic" gears in their engines.

roadburner

I knew the bean counters were taking over GM when I discovered that the stock 2V carburetor on my 1974 Monte Carlo was mounted with only two bolts...

isellhondas

You find it "amusing" that Hondas in the late 90's needed valve jobs?

Absoultly not true! No truth to that at all. Ask any Honda mechanic.

Sometimes when little old ladies drove them too gently, carbon would build up under the valve seats (any car will do this). Sometimes we need to do a "Carbon Blast" which blows these carbon deposits out.

As far as your "slight" oil leak, if you happen to live in So. Calif you can check out my buddies driveway where his 1994 De Ville used to sit before it's untimly demise.

It leaked pretty bad as the leak continued to get worse. According to some shops I know the problem was pretty common.

Please confirm that 1998 was the year they made the revision. My friend loved that car (so did I) and he wants another one but he doesn't want to face the oil leak situation again.

isellhondas

Very true about today's oil being so much better. I'm not convinced that synthetics are that much better than conventional oils. I just change mine about every 4000 miles. Todays cars run hotter which is better and with modern fuel injection, the oil doesn't get diluted by gasoline nearly as much.

In the "old days" going 100,000 miles without an overhaul was possible but it didn't happen that often. Valve jobs were common around the 50-60000 mark and ring jobs were usually necessary not long after that.

Any engine with 80,000 plus miles was probably due for a rebore. These things are unheard of now with modern engines.

hpmctorque

I don't know the answer to your question regarding what percentage of motorists use conventional motor oil versus synthetic, but it's clearly a choice.

isellhondas

I sure don't remember anything about weak bottom ends or bad camshafts. I don't think these were "common problems".

Valve guides would wear out and we used to have the heads machined and Perfect Circle seals installed which really helped.

A 283-327's were pretty rugged but after 80,000 miles or so they needed a rebuild which usually required a rebore.

We expected this back then and just had the work done if we could afford it. OTerwise, we chugged around burning oil.

tomcatt630

"What did Ford and C do?"

They always had corporate motors, using the same basic designs across brands. So, Lincoln-Mercury owners didnt get upset seeing Ford 460 engines under the hood. And Mopar was famous for using the same engines, no one cared if a Plymouth or Chrysler used same 383 or 440.

tomcatt630

I do remember my cousin had a used 74 Catalina with a 400 2v, and it had a plastic timing gear that broke. :sick: Replaced with a metal one. That car was constantly needing tune ups, and had to be babied to run good.

GM fans rationalize and say 'well jut put oil in' or 'just pay the $$ to fix it', but people have better things to do with their time than baby their cars. :mad: Thus, GM loses sales, and Ch. 11 BK...

isellhondas

Most cars of that era used timing gears that were tipped with plastic. This was done to reduce noise. All of the replacement gears were metal and I can't remember them being any louder.

The mid-seventies weren't good years for GM or anyone else.