before the panther there was this lol

[sly]

are you sure about the 700R4 in that Parisienne? I thought they were all 200R4's. That tranny was not very strong, but then, when you put only 130 horsepower in front of it, it's no problem. You're right about the carbs - they sucked! I rebuilt one one time (never again!) and it was a pain! you had to have all these special gauges for the primary and secondary pull off's. That engine was so choked by emission and regs of the day, that it was doomed from the start. And then came the legendary LT1....one of the most beautiful pushrod motors ever designed. Reverse flow cooling to allow much higher compression than would have otherwise been possible, optispark distributor that did not get its timing off such indirect means as a cam lobe, but rather, directly off of the front of the cam. Water pump was also cam driven and not belt driven.

I'm dead certain about the 700r4 in my 85. Mine was a Brougham edition too. That might have something to do with it.

[rapider86merc]

are you sure about the 700R4 in that Parisienne? I thought they were all 200R4's. That tranny was not very strong, but then, when you put only 130 horsepower in front of it, it's no problem. You're right about the carbs - they sucked! I rebuilt one one time (never again!) and it was a pain! you had to have all these special gauges for the primary and secondary pull off's. That engine was so choked by emission and regs of the day, that it was doomed from the start. And then came the legendary LT1....one of the most beautiful pushrod motors ever designed. Reverse flow cooling to allow much higher compression than would have otherwise been possible, optispark distributor that did not get its timing off such indirect means as a cam lobe, but rather, directly off of the front of the cam. Water pump was also cam driven and not belt driven.

the one that i had the one in the pic had a 700r4 too

[1987cp]

A nice riding car is a nice riding car no matter who made it. A Parisienne is a nice riding car

That car was actually called the Bonneville through at least '81, at least until the Bonneville name went on the four-door G body somewhere around '83 and subsequently onto a FWD Chevy Celebrity.

[alchemist]

towing only needs torque and gears. And that 85 with the electronic q-jet that I had would idle UP a 6 degree incline even with the pissy, leaky carb. HP is a function of RPM and torque... you get higher revs, you'll have higher HP. These engines were meant to be highway cruises, not muscle cars. They worked very well for their intended purpose.

You are right - that's why i bought one of the last year's model in 1989. and i agree with you - these cars were geared right. And they did have some decent torque. I pulled a large uhaul 2 axle from Kentucky to North Carolina, via I-40 with the 89. i would buy one once again if they were still made (and I was confident I could tune the carb correctly). Will try to post a couple pics of the old B-bodies soon.

[gadget73]

B bodies are nice cars, engineering-wise they are very similar to a Panther. Same market segment, similar power/torque figures, similar gearing, etc. I think the plastic materials used in the Chevys weren't as good as what Ford used, but their carb models probably ran more reliably than Ford's CFI engines and I'm reasonably sure they had better power too. The Chevy TBI cars were not really any better than the Ford SEFI ones. They do seem to rot out more badly though, at least around here. I see a lot more Fords on the road yet than the GM offerings.


One thing I've long thought was sort of silly about GM in general is the different engines they used. Buy a Chevy Caprice sedan and you get a Chevy motor. Buy a Chevy Estate Wagon of the same year, and you got an Olds 307. Wha? My boss actually has a pair, an 89 Caprice with a TBI 305, and his dad's old wagon with a 4bbl 307. Apparently the wagons came off the Olds line, and got the Olds motor. Honestly I wouldn't mind getting an Olds B body wagon and sticking a Caddy 472 driveline in it. It would be fun, and those Caddy motors were some torquey beasts

[packman]

My mom's Delta 88 could spin the tires a bit with the 307. I never figured out what rear that car had. At least if ya bought an Olds or a Pontiac you got an Olds or a Pontiac engine and not just a standard Chevy engine. A friend of my father's was pissed off to find a Chevy 350 in his brand-new '84 Caddy Fleetwood. I think he returned it and got something else. I heard GM did that for a short time in the '80s; until they started losing too many customers. Though with the LS-series engines, I don't think people are too angry about the engine selection. Though at least GM is smart enough now to put Caddy engine covers on the LS engines. They should have done that back in the '80s (at least scratch Caddy on the Chevy valve covers, jeesh!

My Malibu was hard pressed to spin the tires with the 305 and a 2.41 rear. If I had a box Caprice, I'd probably slap a BBC in there and call it a day. Though, if I were to get a Chevy, I'd go with a 78-79 Malibu or a '76-'79 Nova. Those were the cars that I grew up with and still love.


Packman

[alchemist]

10-4 on those Chevy valve covers! 4 bolts just don't keep things together. Olds and Pontiac engines got 8. There were some decent Olds engines out there prior to the 307 Y code and post muscle car: The 455 and the 403. The Olds 455 was different than the Chevy and different than the Pontiac. Believe the Olds had the highest bore to stroke ratio. But with all respect to Slymer (and he's helped me countless times w/my 90 GM), I'd side with the 83 CV over my 83 Buick, any day. That damn Rochester Quadrajet was one over-engineered piece. The engine was a maze of vacuum tubing. More than any engine I've ever experienced. My 83 CV was the TBI and had much tighter throttle response - I loved it. But as everyone here has said, there were goods and bads on each of the RWD platforms of Ford and GM.

How 'bout the similar year Chrysler? My dad owned a land yacht - a 1977 Dodge Royal Monaco. Great car and the always dependable Chrysler Powertrain. Other than the powertrain though, Dodge's rusted out bad.

[1987cp]

That's a thought - one can make fun of a feedback Rocheter, but it's probably better than either a VV or CFI. I actually know a guy who was involved in designing the feedback carbs at the Rochester division ... same guy who also gave me a schooling on the LSx hydraulic cylinder-shutoff solenoids.

[alchemist]

That's a thought - one can make fun of a feedback Rocheter, but it's probably better than either a VV or CFI. I actually know a guy who was involved in designing the feedback carbs at the Rochester division ... same guy who also gave me a schooling on the LSx hydraulic cylinder-shutoff solenoids.

Yeah, that's right! it was called a 'feedback' Rochester. Problem was, after a couple of years of crap getting in the carb, it ceased to feed back correctly, in my exprience. I never owned a VV, but my 83 with the TBI (looked like couple of injectors sitting on a carburetor mount, centrally located) was very smooth. Does CFI equate to TBI in your lingo?

[1987cp]

Yep, central fuel injection ~= throttle body fuel injection.

[alchemist]

Yep, central fuel injection ~= throttle body fuel injection.

I hear you. My CFI gave me no problems whatsoever in my 83 CV; however, the three late model Quadrajets I had sucked A$$. During grad school, i owned a Buick Regal with the 307 that my cousin had converted over to a high (relative term in that day) performance engine VIN = 9 instead of Y, the Hurst Olds engine. But my business partner at the gym we owned had an 87 Regal T-type, and trust me, no carb! That car kicked my tail all over the place. And then I bought an 85 Mustang GT (last carbureted year) 5 speed, and he still could whip me on the 1/4, apples to apples, both of us running MT's on the back. I always wanted one of those T-types but couldn't afford one.

[gadget73]

CFI runs fine when its running. The 80-83 system is really funky to diagnose though. If its giving you trouble and you dont know it's secrets, you'll be hard pressed to find someone who does. 84-85 isn't a lot better, though a few more people understand it. The feedback carbs? Nobody gets those. They either work, or they do not. No clue how to fix them other than replace the 40 miles of vacuum hose (or eliminate what isn't really required, which happens to be a lot of it) and hope for the best. Or, you toss the feedback carb in the circular file and install one that works. Qjets really are not bad carbs, but I think they get a lot of bad rap for that electronical nonsense they had in the 80s. The 70s ones that were just a 4bbl worked well, and the marine ones that had no emissions controls ran quite well too.

[1987cp]

I hear you. My CFI gave me no problems whatsoever in my 83 CV; however, the three late model Quadrajets I had sucked A$$. During grad school, i owned a Buick Regal with the 307 that my cousin had converted over to a high (relative term in that day) performance engine VIN = 9 instead of Y, the Hurst Olds engine. But my business partner at the gym we owned had an 87 Regal T-type, and trust me, no carb! That car kicked my tail all over the place. And then I bought an 85 Mustang GT (last carbureted year) 5 speed, and he still could whip me on the 1/4, apples to apples, both of us running MT's on the back. I always wanted one of those T-types but couldn't afford one.

Uh ... yeah. Definltely no way a typical '80s V8 car could get anywhere near an '87 T type.

[alchemist]

CFI runs fine when its running. The 80-83 system is really funky to diagnose though. If its giving you trouble and you dont know it's secrets, you'll be hard pressed to find someone who does.

Absolutely correct! You're bringing back my memory bank now. I replaced the engine in my 83 at about 130,000 (gunked up and oil pump failed on I-75 near Knoxville, TN), and it never idled smooth again. I didn't know as much about engine computers in those days but my Ford tech friend who was VERY good said my car was an EEC-III (not II or IV, but III) and he said that was one of the worst cars to diagnose. It wouldn't throw a code, but there was something wrong. He had me change a couple of parts (but no guarantee that was it - I can't recall what they were) and it did not help. Another mechanic told me I had the wrong distributor cap on my car (which I did not) and he said to use some weird Lincoln 1982 cap that was like a two-tiered sparker). I called up Ford and they said he was full of it. It never idled right after the engine replacement. But I did like that car a lot.

BTW, the wagons on the GM b-bodies had a lot better rear ends (e.g. 3:23) than the sedans (2:56 and worse). The 307 Y might have been lame on HP, but it did have respectable torque.

[t65neon5]

cool....had 2 of those...a 84 and an 86.....83& 84 had chevy 305 engines(wagons may have had 307olds...dont know for sure).....85 and 86 had 307 (y) olds engines....having owned both...the olds motor was smoother...the chevy motor was a lil more powerful...(and i do mean a little...!)both were high mileage by the time i sold them.....the olds motor seemed fine...but the chevy motor seemed like it was fading fast....both had 700r4 trans...(my 80 caprice had the 200 trans with a 305....and that motor was junk too)...if i remember correctly....early 305 engines had camshaft issues....."soft camshafts"..they would wear out quickly with excessive lobe wear...(later 305's came with better cams)