suckolux
Well-known member
If I recall 3 Liter too! Saw one in an early front drive PA and Cutlass Ciera
What's your favorite car?
- Thread starter singerman
- Start date
Help Support VacuumLand:
vacerator
Well-known member
Yes, 3 litre also David
in Olds Acieva, Skylark also.
in Olds Acieva, Skylark also.
electrikbroomgu
Well-known member
3300 and 3800
I have seen many 3300 and 3800 Buick V6's with 300-400K miles that still run as new. My friend is co-owner of a small dealership that sells loads of these cars and high miles is the norm. The Series II 3800 did have the upper plastic intake manifold issue but once that is corrected and replaced these mills are usually good for a load of miles.
I have seen many 3300 and 3800 Buick V6's with 300-400K miles that still run as new. My friend is co-owner of a small dealership that sells loads of these cars and high miles is the norm. The Series II 3800 did have the upper plastic intake manifold issue but once that is corrected and replaced these mills are usually good for a load of miles.
suckolux
Well-known member
I used to manage a quick lube, true they did rack up the miles!
human
Well-known member
I had the 3.0 liter, 2bbl carb variant in an '84 Buick Century. Probably one of the last carbureted engines GM made.
electrikbroomgu
Well-known member
Last GM carbureted engine
To my knowledge was the 1990 Oldsmobile 307 4BBL V8 as in the Full size B-body station wagons and the Cadillac Brougham. The Buick 3.0 2BBL V6 lasted until 1985 and was succeeded by the Chevy made 2.8 2BBL for the 1986 model year. We worked on many mid to late 1980's Honda's with carburetors and a few Mazda's too.
To my knowledge was the 1990 Oldsmobile 307 4BBL V8 as in the Full size B-body station wagons and the Cadillac Brougham. The Buick 3.0 2BBL V6 lasted until 1985 and was succeeded by the Chevy made 2.8 2BBL for the 1986 model year. We worked on many mid to late 1980's Honda's with carburetors and a few Mazda's too.
suckolux
Well-known member
I thought that 260 looked choked with that half quad
vacerator
Well-known member
They were choked
David. My '77 Pontiac GP has the 301 with the half quad. It tries to suck in more air when you floor it, but well, it's choked.
Fuel economy was the word of the year back then, because the cars were still heavy. Secondaries only engage when you floor it anyhow.
They did the half quad because the primaries were smaller venturies than the two barrel Rochester carb.
I pulled the carb off once, to see if the manifold had four holes. It doesn't.
David. My '77 Pontiac GP has the 301 with the half quad. It tries to suck in more air when you floor it, but well, it's choked.
Fuel economy was the word of the year back then, because the cars were still heavy. Secondaries only engage when you floor it anyhow.
They did the half quad because the primaries were smaller venturies than the two barrel Rochester carb.
I pulled the carb off once, to see if the manifold had four holes. It doesn't.
suckolux
Well-known member
I assumed that! My dad had a 76 Ventura with that motor, always wanted a 4 brl and duals to see if it could pass something then! It was fine at lower speeds, actually was a really good car, nothing broke, ever.
vacerator
Well-known member
Wow David,
my ex had a '78 Phoenix, but he ordered the V6, and it spun a bearing then seized up because he fell asleep drunk with the engine running and it overheated. He passed out next to the front of the car. I should have done a 180 degree spin and ran, but hindsight is 20/20. A former life, live and learn. He was a GM shop rat. We dropped a 260 in it, and it ran another few years until the dimmer switch shorted and the car burned up. His mom had a '79 with a Chev.305, an no troubles either.
Willow Run assembly turned out some good cars back in the day.
My partner is great now. 23 years we're together.
my ex had a '78 Phoenix, but he ordered the V6, and it spun a bearing then seized up because he fell asleep drunk with the engine running and it overheated. He passed out next to the front of the car. I should have done a 180 degree spin and ran, but hindsight is 20/20. A former life, live and learn. He was a GM shop rat. We dropped a 260 in it, and it ran another few years until the dimmer switch shorted and the car burned up. His mom had a '79 with a Chev.305, an no troubles either.
Willow Run assembly turned out some good cars back in the day.
My partner is great now. 23 years we're together.
suckolux
Well-known member
That 260 felt like the power of the v6, but it was smooth
human
Well-known member
You're right about that. My sister had a '78 Cutlass Supreme with a 260 and its performance was pretty anemic, even compared to my '77 Buick Skylark that had a 231 V6.
vacerator
Well-known member
Smooth
yes! An Oldsmobile V8 hallmark. The low 2:29 or 2:56 to 1 rear axle ratio didn't help either.
I never drove one with a 3:08, but even the 301 or the 305 V8's with a 2:56 had enough power.
Once those old 231 V6's were broken in, you could feel the roughness of the engine in the gas pedal.
yes! An Oldsmobile V8 hallmark. The low 2:29 or 2:56 to 1 rear axle ratio didn't help either.
I never drove one with a 3:08, but even the 301 or the 305 V8's with a 2:56 had enough power.
Once those old 231 V6's were broken in, you could feel the roughness of the engine in the gas pedal.
suckolux
Well-known member
I would guess, just a gut feel it was around 135 hp
dartman
Well-known member
Spread bore carbs
The spread bore carbs were developed to help drivability, fuel economy, and emissions. Carter made the Thermo Quad and GM had the Quadra Jet. Very small primaries and huge secondaries. If either is setup properly the car will pull smoother, get a bit better mpg, and emissions should be better. The old square bore carbs the primary bores were slightly smaller then the secondaries and MPG and emissions were not a concern when they were designed in the fifties and sixties.
I run a ThermoQuad on my Dart and it is the smoothest, best pulling carb I ever have had. I tried a Holley, AFB, AVS, and I tuned all of them the best I could and the TQ is the best of them for me. The spread bore was the most advanced design of carb Americans came up with but most of their runs they were smogged out to death, tied to early horrible emission based computer control and severely locked down as far as adjustability.
Early ones can be tuned very well if you can find a strip kit for it. I have them for the AFB, AVS, and TQ. You have to use a intake designed to use them, most aftermarket later ones can use square bore or spread bore carbs interchangeably. Otherwise you use what the car came with but they did make adapters that sorta worked.
Test drove a ram charger suv that had a 2bbl to 4bbl adapter on it and a small holley. Had to be horribly in efficient and choked down. It did seem to run ok though.
The spread bore carbs were developed to help drivability, fuel economy, and emissions. Carter made the Thermo Quad and GM had the Quadra Jet. Very small primaries and huge secondaries. If either is setup properly the car will pull smoother, get a bit better mpg, and emissions should be better. The old square bore carbs the primary bores were slightly smaller then the secondaries and MPG and emissions were not a concern when they were designed in the fifties and sixties.
I run a ThermoQuad on my Dart and it is the smoothest, best pulling carb I ever have had. I tried a Holley, AFB, AVS, and I tuned all of them the best I could and the TQ is the best of them for me. The spread bore was the most advanced design of carb Americans came up with but most of their runs they were smogged out to death, tied to early horrible emission based computer control and severely locked down as far as adjustability.
Early ones can be tuned very well if you can find a strip kit for it. I have them for the AFB, AVS, and TQ. You have to use a intake designed to use them, most aftermarket later ones can use square bore or spread bore carbs interchangeably. Otherwise you use what the car came with but they did make adapters that sorta worked.
Test drove a ram charger suv that had a 2bbl to 4bbl adapter on it and a small holley. Had to be horribly in efficient and choked down. It did seem to run ok though.
vacerator
Well-known member
Horsepower
was 145 for a 4 barrel 305 in 1986.
Torque was decent, or maybe it was the 200 R4 transmission, but that first to second gear shift was abrupt at over half throttle.
Ford used a variable venturi carburetor with computer mixture control but it did not work as well as a Quadrajet with computer mixture control.
was 145 for a 4 barrel 305 in 1986.
Torque was decent, or maybe it was the 200 R4 transmission, but that first to second gear shift was abrupt at over half throttle.
Ford used a variable venturi carburetor with computer mixture control but it did not work as well as a Quadrajet with computer mixture control.
suckolux
Well-known member
I was guessing on the hp of the 260
vacerator
Well-known member
David,
the 260 only gave 105 H.P.
the 260 only gave 105 H.P.
suckolux
Well-known member
wow, I think the odd fire 231 was that too. must have had more torque
