From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (Andreas  Tovornik)
Subject: Re: AUTOMATICS CAN BE NICE! (Was Re: FLAME
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 23:41:06 GMT

In article 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?

Basically yes, but my Buick's springs were finished, the shocks were leaking
badly, I had no REAR SWAY BAR, crappy tires, and a cracked frame. My mother's
'80 Lemans was also based on the A-car platform, and I remember how it rode
and handled when new. These cars were nice to drive when new but the shits
when neglected for a few years. Mine was for working with concrete, so I
picked it up cheap, and I didn't care what happened to it. GM likely had
different spring rates, shocks, bushings, swaybars, etc. for its many models
based on the A-car. Everything from those ugly late-seventies fastback
Cutlasses to the GNX were made on the same basic platform, believe it or not.
>>
>>>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....   :-)
>>
>>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
>>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.

Three gears are fine. Only problem with some GM THM's is that under heavy 
acceleration(in stock form, without any mods) they get confused as to what 
gear to get into when you lift that foot for the shift. A good shift kit
(is that what you have?) usually cures that problem.

Yorque Monger