From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: AUTOMATICS CAN BE NICE! (Was Re: FLAME
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:20:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: cos.bob1.721516859
Distribution: world
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems

In <BxILtF.H6M@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> mshar@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Mike Mshar) writes:

>In article <1992Nov10.162652.20456@sol.UVic.CA> atovorni@engr.UVic.CA writes:
>>
>>>Actually, the car handles fairly decent for its size. It is anything but a
>>>cushy ride, I can tell you that. With a little work on the front end, this
>>>chasis could be an excellent candidate for a street machine. Just gotta get
>>>the money to build it up, first!
>>
>>I had an '81 Buick Century. It handled like a yacht and blew around in
>>crosswinds. Goog thing your car(based on the same platform) sits better
>>on the road than that thing(no rear swaybar and abused suspension) did.

>Are you sure that the Century is the same platform as an `81 Monte?? I know
>that the Regal has the same platform from 1981-1988, as did the Grand Prix
>and the Cutlass. Does the Buick Century have the same chasis setup?

They aren't the same chassis. The Century was/is the A body (Ihad one
of those 81s myself) and the Monte Carlo is F or G body (my wife still
drives her 78, but it only has 75,000 miles on it). The two body styles
are close but do have some significant differences.

>>
>>>And BTW, a TH350 is NOT a mushy, wobbly, slushbox. Any tranny that can
>>>survive for 17 years behind a 350 (of which 3 of those years it was behind
>>>a BUILT 350) in the stock configuration is not `slushy`. Ford autos, on the
>>>other hand....   :-)


The 350 used to be rock solid, but the one in my Century literaly died
at 70,000 miles. I think the bean counters got to it.

>>
>>OK, don't laugh now. The best-performing automatic that I have ever owned
>>was the modified POWERGLIDE(2-speed) in my '70 Monte Carlo 350 with a

Oh lordy, the good old whiz-bang! :-) had one in a 60 Belair with a 283
driving it. Good car, but the salt got her.

>>2-barrel(great low-end torque) and a set of headers/low restriction
>>exhaust. Because of this strong-shifting, bulletproof automatic, I
>>used to out-accelerate manual CAMAROS because the guys didn't know
>>how to launch their cars(they would just spin their wheels) or speed-
>>shift. That old Monte would just stay in first up to 75 Mph or until I
>>let up on the gas. When I would let up, it would immediately hit second
>>and I'd get back into the meaty part of the power curve! 

>Very true, many a drag fan has used this trans. But for a car that spends
>much of its life on the highway, I like to have the three gears. If this
>were a drag car of any sort, maybe a powerglide would do the trick. But for
>now, I like the three gears.

>Mike

Well, right now I drive a 4 speed auto. I prefer a 5 speed stick but
with beltway traffic here, I would probably lose 5 pounds a day with
all the exercise of shifting :-(.

REB

>-- 
>|       Michael G. Mshar        | My Life-Long Goal: To keep common sense    |
>|   mmshar@mn.ecn.purdue.edu    | alive and keep the idiots from taking over.|
>|  mshar@mentor.cc.purdue.edu   |     \\President, Nice Guys Anonymous//     |
>|____>>> United States Steel, Mechanical Engineer, Technical Services <<<____|
Newsgroups: rec.autos