HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kelley@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sean Kelley)
Subject: Re: HEELLLLLPPPP!!!!!
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:07:47 GMT

Two methods you can use to find a good leak like that...one..good old
carbuator cleaner...and two....a propane bottle with the attachment, but
do not light it, run it along all gasket lines until there is a change
in idle....

you might want to just check that everything is torqued down properly
also, like carb, intake manifold, etc...


--
	    ________________-----------------_____________
            \                                            /
             \  SEAN KELLEY    KELLEY@CWIS.UNOMAHA.EDU  / 
              ------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom
From: mdl@oscar.bellcore.com (Michael Lynch)
Subject: RE: Furd Flat-head
Reply-To: mdl@oscar.bellcore.com (Michael Lynch)
Organization: Bellcore
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 13:11:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.142529.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, milliganc@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
|> The performence of a flat-head, now there's a contradiction of terms!!  I know
|> that this is the engine that has been heralded for years, by some.  I have a
|> couple in my yard.  One (a '47) powers an electric welder generator, not my
|> choice it came that way.  Another is in an ALLARD (You've probably never heard
|> of it).  Oh,yeah, then there's the one i've planted geraniums in the cylinders.
|> I also know of one being use as a boat anchor.  Flat-heads run hot, when they
|> run.  In the early '50's a fully dressed up flat-head would get about 260 h.p.
|> The *stock* Cadillac engine was doing that........oh,well, there are those who
|> love them... I hope you hear from them, to.
|>                                Happy Motoring,
|> 				KILROY 


There are a lot of flatties out there, running hot, sounding great, looking
even better.  It's sort of an interesting testimony to their durability
that you've got a '47 powering your generator.  Last winter I saw a '49
powering a rope tow at a ski club.   I think most of us flattie folks don't
care much about the horses.  Put duals and echo cans on the flathead and
it sounds so good it doesn't matter how fast it goes.

Flatheads Forever!!


Mike Lynch
mdl@oscar.bellcore.com
From: jws@billy.mlb.semi.harris.com (James W. Swonger)
Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom
Subject: Re: Buick big blocks
Date: 9 Nov 92 13:37:30 GMT
Organization: Harris Semiconductor, Melbourne FL


 I believe the '75 - '76 455 engines had HEI. These would be a straight
swap. Also, I've heard that the 350 Buick HEI is interchangeable. Since
you're unlikely to exceed 6000RPM, a clean HEI setup ought to be more
than adequate. If you pull the points-type distributor, save it. They're
not too easy to find, and the ones I run across always seem to be missing
parts by the time I get there. 

 As far as going to FI, the open-loop Pro-Jection system has a reputation
for being a clunker. You might be better off to get a Q-jet set up by a
pro. Part of your driveability problems, if any, may stem from 10.2:1
compression. 

 If you have the ST-400 trans, the gizmo that switches the torque 
converter pitch could have a big effect on off-the-line behavior and
idle. It's a switch mechanism mounted on the intake, driver's side rear.
You should be in high-stall at idle and WOT, low stall at part throttle.
Staying in low stall all the time will make your idle hard to live with;
permanent high-stall will keep you slipping as you cruise.
-- 
##########################################################################
#Irresponsible rantings of the author alone. Any resemblance to persons  #
#living or dead then yer bummin. May cause drowsiness. Alcohol may inten-#
#sify this effect. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Billy!#
Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom
Subject: Re: 351 Lust
From: fuchs@local.host
Date: 10 Nov 92 07:43:17 -0600
Reply-To: fuchs@local.host
Organization: Organization, City, State, etc.

In article <1992Nov9.141559.6438@walter.bellcore.com>, mdl@oscar.bellcore.com (Michael Lynch) writes:
>I'm in the process of customizing a '53 Ford Mainline Tudor, and all along
>I've intended to have the flathead rebuilt.  Now temptation rears its ugly
>head.  A local garage is parting out a battered '70 Torino, and I just
>stopped to look at the engine. 
Way too much money.  You're talking $1100 for some parts from a 70 car.  You
can pick up a complete car for much less than that.  Also consider this very
carefully.  The oil sump on the flathead is at the rear of the engine but on
all newer Ford engines the sump is at the front which is right where the
crossmember and tie rod is located so that there is considerable mods needed to
put a Ford motor in an older Ford car.  Why do you think most hot rodders put a
Chevy in their Ford?  It fits! Sorry but I would pass.
Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom
From: kuo@teal.csn.org (Spencer Shafer)
Subject: Re: Buick big blocks
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:24:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.142206.23614@mlb.semi.harris.com> jws@billy.mlb.semi.harris.com (James W. Swonger) writes:
> Buick big blocks were produced from 1967 to 1976. They have their good
>and bad points, as any motor does. Their greatest advantages are their
>excellent torque and light weight. The biggest disadvantage to the
>hot rodder is the limited availability and higher price of performance
>parts. A Buick big block, even smogged, puts out over 1 lb-ft / in3.
>The best factory 455s (the 1970 Stage 1s) gave 510 lb-ft or so of
>torque, and at low enough RPM that they were great street motors. The
>Buick motors were not typically set up to rev high, and many bracket
>racers who run Buicks use relatively tall rear end ratios (around 3.8:1  
>vs. high 4s:1 for many other, higher revving motors).
>
> The series started with the 400/430 motors in 1967. These engines are
>identical except for the bore diameter. The stroke is 3.90" and the bores
>are 4.0 and 4.1875" respectively. The 400 therefore has much thicker 
>cylinder walls, and in fact the block can be turned directly into a
>430 by boring - this block could be bored and rebuilt 5 times at .030"
>bore increment. The 455 was introduced in 1970 and has a slightly
>different casting to accommodate the larger 4.3125" bore. The moving
>parts are interchangeable, except for the heads, between all 3 types.
>The 455 had fairly thin walls, which is a potential problem if you
>try to bore to .060" over; sleeving is not unheard of. The big block
>Buick weighs in at about 30lb more than a SB Chevy motor, far lighter
>than the massive BB Chevy motor but very close in torque and HP in
>stock trim.
 Text deleted...

Big question, commonly asked, I'm sure:  I have a Buick Electra 225 Convertible
with the 430, all stock.  I'm a Modern Man and will not put up with fussing
with the engine, dist., carb, etc.  In order to make my engine more reliable
and run more efficiently, I'm thinking about 1.) upgrading the 4-bbl QJet
to a Holley 2-bbl closed-loop fuel injection (big bucks - $800?), and 2.)
upgrading the ignition system to some sort of electronic version.  I've
looked into the various GM HEI replacements, and they don't seem all-electronic.
You have to replace one or two thingamabobs every tune-up.  Why would I want
to go whole hog and upgrade to a semi-street/race Mallory true electronic
ignition?  Is it worth the additional cost?

This car is and always will be a "cruiser".  I don't give a hoot about
top-end horsepower, just reliability.

David Haile
-- 
  /-------------------------------------------------------------------------/
 /      David W. Haile - Kuo & Associates, Inc., Ft. Collins, Colorado     /
/-------------------------------------------------------------------------/
From: bedr7598@corvair.edu (bedrosian peter )
Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom
Subject: Need 5-speed Transmission for 89 Chevy Z24
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:19:45 GMT
Reply-To: bedr7598@corvair.edu
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.



Need a 5 speed transmission for a friend of mine that will fit his Z24 with 2.8 V6.
This is a replacement not a modification to the car.

please E-Mail if you have any info. Can be used (Preffered) can't afford new.

Peter Bedrosian
bedr7598@nova.gmi.edu
From: damong@pacman.WPI.EDU (Damon Francis Gentile)
Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom
Subject: Good performace mods
Date: 10 Nov 1992 04:18:57 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: pacman.wpi.edu

Hey all, I was wondering if you can help me slect some perfomance mods
for my "project". It is a '74 Fiat X1/9 1290 cc, mid engine, rear drive.

I was thinking of perhaps a new camshaft (~$300) or maybe a performace
milled head (~$LOT) or maybe even a stroker kit to go to 1.8 (~$1300).
Perhaps also a lightened flywheel, or dual carbs (but for hard street
driving, would a rejet be better for a dual 32mm Webber ?)


Thanks all,
Damon


Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom
From: bryan@elara.mitre.org (Bryan Blackwell)
Subject: Re: Just starting out really
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:19:49 GMT

Dave said:

>My question is: will we have to
>change the rear or will the 6-cylinder C-4 transmission coupled with this
>rear work together to produce a safe, dependable, and snappy final drive
>for our 351W. Can anybody help?

I would say that you will want a V-8 rear and trans in this car.  Although
the existing setup may live due mostly to lack of traction, if it hooks up
it will almost certainly break something fairly quickly, especially with
a modified engine.

the rear end ratio nas no real bearing on durability, you should be able
to get a stronger rear in whatever ratio you want.  Personally, I prefer gears
in the 3.1 to 3.6 range for a street car.  What usually breaks in the rear are
the spider gears, BTW.
Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom
From: ausdal@ece.scarolina.edu (Thi Van Ausdal)
Subject: Re: Hammered roof on a Bronco II?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:24:02 GMT

nitram@tellabs.com (Marty Hewes) writes:

>Am I sick?  Should I have my head examined?  I'm getting bored
>with my '82 Z-28.  Every kid in town has one.  I'm contemplating
>chopping 3" out of the top of my Bronco II.  Damn thing is too
>tall anyway.  I have torches and saws, but no time.  Anybody
>know anybody around Chicago who does this kind of thing?

>				       Marty Hewes
>				       (708) 665-6671
No, you ain't sick, just imaginative (duck, here come the flames, Marty)
Your complaint that every kid in town has a Z-28 is probably true
(my lady friend Jean has a '91 Camaro, as do half of the kids at her alma
mater).  Unfortunately, the windy city is a bit away from me here in Col'a,
SC...  so I can't say that I'd know who would be able to do that job for ya.
However, I would say it ain't a bad choice:  Bronc's got a frame, not a 
unit-body which would do a neat accordian trick when you work with the roof
(unless they are REAL good, or reinforce the floor heavily) so you could
do almost anything with the body you wanted to... 

Go for it!
					Thi VanAusdal

Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom
From: mshar@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Mike Mshar)
Subject: Re: '87 Trans Am Modifications
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:36:05 GMT

> Stephen James Kendrish <sk4k+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>In need of advice.
>
>     I'm telling myself that I'm investing money into my '87 Trans Am to
>get more money out of it than I'll put into it by reselling (a lot of
>people probably say this).  I probably will not sell it, however, when
>I'm finished with it.  I bought the car for $3000 R-Titled.  The body
>work is still excellent and the 305cid non-TPI motor runs great for
>116,000 miles.  I feel like I got a pretty good deal.  
>     
>     Anyway, at this moment I'm having a 400SB Chevy being built for it.
> I got it for $200 out of a 1970 station wagon (70,000 mi.).  First of
>all, I'm wondering if the transmission and rear end can handle this
>power?  It has the TH700R4 Automatic OD transmission and stock rear end.

The real question here is:

Will the body be able to handle it?? I have seen and heard way too many
bent up TA stories to ever consider putting a quality engine into one of
these cars. Did you ever notice that you never see 5.7 TPI IROCS with
t-tops (with the exception of one year, 1987 I believe)? Know why? The body
could not handle the torque. Plus, a 1970 400 engine is going to be a lot
heavier than a 1987 305. The newer engine has aluminum brackets, intake
manifold, etc. while everything on the 400 will be cast iron. So, the front
suspension will definitely need to be beefed up.

A 700R4 will not last behind a 400. Period. The only way it will is if it
is ripped open and modified by a good tranny guy. As for the rearend, if it
is a 10 bolt posi, it will probably be OK. 

The point is, if you want to put this 400 into this car and make it not
look and drive like a total amateur job, it is going to take a lot of time,
money, and effort. You have to ask yourself, is it worth it??

It might be cheaper to put some money into rebuilding, camming, and
replacing the 305. It will be a lot cleaner installation. But, I guess the
choice is yours.


-- 
|       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 <<<____|
From: ted@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom
Subject: Re: porting heads
Date: 13 Nov 92 05:40:37 -0500
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club

In article <g0q1+kr@rpi.edu>, scottv@rs6414.ecs.rpi.edu (Vaughan K. Scott) writes:
> 	What exactly does it mean to port your head(s)?  What does the process 
> involve?  (Sorry for the stupid question, I'm new to rods, and there are very
> few in my area (Troy, NY)).
> 
> Thanks
> Vaughan Scott
> scottv@rpi.edu

  At the risk of oversimplification, it means to smooth out and enlarge the
passageways in the cylender heads through which fuel and air flow in and
exhaust flows out.  :)
         TED
From: met@naucse.cse.nau.edu (Millam Tackitt)
Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom
Subject: Re: 351 Lust
Date: 12 Nov 92 11:05:03 GMT
Organization: Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff AZ

In article <1992Nov10.074317.1632@msus1.msus.edu> fuchs@local.host writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.141559.6438@walter.bellcore.com>, mdl@oscar.bellcore.com (Michael Lynch) writes:
>>I'm in the process of customizing a '53 Ford Mainline Tudor, and all along
>>I've intended to have the flathead rebuilt.  Now temptation rears its ugly
>>head.  A local garage is parting out a battered '70 Torino, and I just
>>stopped to look at the engine. 
>Way too much money.  You're talking $1100 for some parts from a 70 car.  You
>can pick up a complete car for much less than that.  Also consider this very

I am in complete agreement with this, you can find a car of the same
usefullness in the paper for 2-300 bucks.

>carefully.  The oil sump on the flathead is at the rear of the engine but on
>all newer Ford engines the sump is at the front which is right where the
>crossmember and tie rod is located so that there is considerable mods needed to
>put a Ford motor in an older Ford car.  Why do you think most hot rodders put a
>Chevy in their Ford?  It fits! Sorry but I would pass.
Actually, the reason for putting a chebie into a FORD is because the
chebie is about two inches shorter. Almost all FORD engines have a
rear sump option, look for a van or truck oil pan and pickup.
Me personally, I would prefer the FLAT-HEAD, just for the COOL dontcha
know! For performance, hey they had 7 second flat-heads back in the 
fifties!

***************************************************************
Millam E. Tackitt                        met@naucse.cse.nau.edu

1967 Cougar XR-7 271/289 4spd/CR 4spd
1968 Galaxie XL-GT 345/390 Auto 
1953 3/4 ton Chevy pickumup truck

newly aquired:
1968 Galaxie XL-GT 345/390 Auto (console)
1967 Cougar XR-7 (will become a race specific version of above)
***************************************************************
From: nasiatka@anhep3.anl.gov (Jim Wylde)
Newsgroups: alt.autos.rod-n-custom
Subject: Re: HEELLLLLPPPP!!!!!
Date: 13 Nov 92 15:46:18 GMT
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois

In article <1992Nov12.175529.6235@mlb.semi.harris.com> jws@billy.mlb.semi.harris.com (James W. Swonger) writes:

> Sounds like things are just a bit too lean. How's the choke? Thermac 
>hooked up? A carb rebuild can't always be finished on the bench. Maybe
>the primary mixture needs adjusted. Try the choke/fast idle first though,
>if it runs OK warm.

*sigh* ...  Already did that.  I've had the mixture screws in every 
possible position from ultra lean to almost falling out.  It didn't 
make any difference in the problem.  'course when I got way outta 
line on the mixture it REALLY ran shitty...

It's an Electric choke.  I've played with having it hooked up, not hooked
up, hooked up at different electrical terminals...  No change.

I also put on 2 other carbs that I knew were good.  (took em off of
running engines for a while...)  again. No go.

It's really frustrating.

Thanks tho'

Jim
From: alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: re: cable TV rules
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:23:29 GMT
Organization: Tweek-Com Systems BBS, Moraga, CA (510) 631-0615

Is there an E-mail address for the FCC?

A.Lizard

-------------------------------------------------------------------
A.Lizard Internet Addresses:
alizard%tweekco%boo@PacBell.COM        (preferred)
[path]!pacbell.COM!boo!tweekco!alizard (bang path for above)
alizard@seer.mystic.com (backup)   alizard@Blue.Kludge.com (backup)
From: rlw@beau.atlanta.dg.com (Richard Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cable Bill Verbage?
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 10:20:15 -0500

Look, bud. YOU started this. Have you given no thought at all to how
rude it is to just appear from nowhere and deposit unwarranted and
unsolicited criticism into someone's mailbox? I don't even know you,
pal. What made you think that you needed to even approach me? Was it
some sort of ego trip that made you think that your opinion was so
important that I couldn't live without it?

As for how bold I might be in person, imagine how you would react if
a total stranger walked up to you on the street and announced that your
tie was too wide or that you really should wear a belt with that outfit.
I guess you would be quite bold about responding to that person in a major
negative way. I know I would. So, don't feed me this 'computer screen 
protecting you' and 'another person on the other side of the computer' 
crap. I think it is MUCH more applicable to you than to myself. At least
*I* have provided you with my name and phone number. If anyone is hiding
behind a computer, it is you. If you are ever in the Atlanta area, I will
be glad to meet you in person and explain (at great length) how I feel.
Fair enough?

If you want to discuss this further, at least have the courtesy of 
identifying yourself. If not then just shut up and leave me alone!

*-----------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "Listen, three eyes," he said, "don't you try to outweird me, I get   *
*  stranger things than you free with my breakfast cereal."             *
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Richard L. Wright, Jr             * Disclaimer:                       *
* Data General Corporation          *  The views expressed here are the *
* System Evaluation and Performance *  One True Way to Enlightenment.   *
*   Analysis Center (SEPAC)         *  Everyone shares my views, they   *
* Norcross, Georgia, USA  30092     *  just don't realize it yet.       *
* (404) 448-6072                    *      Riiiiiight.                  *
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------*
Organization: William Rainey Harper College; Palatine, IL  60067
Date: Thursday, 12 Nov 1992 09:14:52 CST
From: <BWUNSCHE@HARPERVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: tv.will.take.your.money


TV.  Will take your money for watching what once was free. No more!!!
     free broad cast . They will turn down the power of the broad cast
     forcing you to go cable . Thats what will happen . No more free
     baseball , no more free football , and so on . Thats why Bush lost
     the veto to regulate cable tv .
     Its back to redio again .

Bill Wunschel                                 bwunsche@HARPERVM.BITNET
computer operator                        William Rainey Harper College
Information Systems                      1200 W Algonquin Rd Palatine IL
From: ClarkeJ@ccmail.gsm.uci.edu (John Clarke)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Do we HAVE to use a box?
Summary: Cable "box" a drag
Keywords: Cable Converter box
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:32:36 GMT
Organization: UCI Grad School of Mgmt


I've long been annoyed that I've got to use a dedicated cable box to switch 
between trunks A and B.  My carrier, in Costa Mesa (CA) carries only local 
VHF on trunk A (even PBS is shifted to trunk B)- every channel other than on-
air is scrambled (on either trunk).

This, of course, prevents Picture in Picture (without two boxes), recording 
one event while watching another, the use of the reasonable tuner in my 
receiver (I'm stuck with a Scientific Atlanta box), and requires a 
universal remote.  
Anyone heard of a better way cable companies can do this (and/or- am I the 
only one bothered by this?).

John Clarke
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: rlw@atlanta.dg.com (Richard Wright)
Subject: Cable Bill Verbage? 
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 20:20:33 GMT
Organization: Data General Corp. ASSD, Atlanta, GA

I'm new to the group, so excuse me if this is a FAQ...

I have recently been informed by my cable company (Wometco) that "their 
hands are tied" regarding adding the new cable channels (SciFi, Cartoon,
etc.). They blame the FCC and Congress' passing the recent Cable Bill. 
Their argument is that the bill may require them to reserve up to 1/3
of their channels for educational/local-access stuff. 

Lets forget for a moment that those new channels went on-line BEFORE the
cable bill was signed and if they had already been added, they could have
probably been 'grandfathered'... 

What I want to know is this: Does anyone have the full, complete text of
the Cable Bill? What (exactly) are the guidelines/directives that the 
FCC is using to formulate their new rules? Has the FCC issued any
statement as to their intentions in this matter?

I suspect that my cable company is just blowing smoke and pulling the
old Republican "Blame Everything On The Democratic Congress" bit, but
I need hard facts to confront them. I would like to compose a 
hard-hitting editorial if I can get enough data to back it up. 

Please submit facts and sources (I don't need any opinions, rumors,
theories or Me-Too's) either to this group or via Email. Thanks. If I
get enough ammo for a scathing letter/editorial, I will post a copy
here. <grin> warming up the old flamethrower...

				Richard
 
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "Listen, three eyes," he said, "don't you try to outweird me, I get   *
*  stranger things than you free with my breakfast cereal."             *
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Richard L. Wright, Jr             * Disclaimer:                       *
* Data General Corporation          *  The views expressed here are the *
* System Evaluation and Performance *  One True Way to Enlightenment.   *
*   Analysis Center (SEPAC)         *  Everyone shares my views, they   *
* Norcross, Georgia, USA  30092     *  just don't realize it yet.       *
* (404) 448-6072                    *      Riiiiiight.                  *
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------*