“Nominal” is a bland word that had a special meaning to people who followed the U.S. manned space program. Not heard from American astronauts since 2011, when the Space Shuttle program ended, it is a reassuring word that means that systems are working properly. Anything from the smallest system to the entire shuttle would be described in a monotone over the radio as nominal. Nominal is an appropriate word to use to describe the state of the 1986 Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser that is doing lumber hauling/mobile locker room/moving etc. duty during the time before it boldly goes where no American station wagon has gone before, across the Atlantic and across the Sahara in the Banjul Challenge (original story here).
At 28 years of age, this classic is receiving the same care and attention that it and most of its sister ships received when new. It lives outside in the elements, hauls things that are often heavy, dirty, or smelly, and gets maintenance and repairs only when really necessary. Age and a complete lack of any special treatment have not prevented its 1980s GM systems from working about as well as they did when new.
The Olds 307 V-8 performs as gradually and phlegmatically as they all did; the THM200R4 automatic still shifts smoothly; three out of four power windows (four out of five if you count the tailgate window) work fine; and everything else works normally except for the rear window defroster (dead switch), air conditioner (needs a conversion to R134 and recharge), and cigarette lighter. The air conditioner is the only system that I intend to address, and it is a low enough priority that I have had all of the parts and materials for it for over a month and have not bothered to use them, with other non-car chores coming first. “All essential systems nominal” is what I would report to mission control.
The wagon’s performance has been sufficiently nominal for me to take it on its first long road trip in many years, perhaps ever, since its only previous owner was an elderly woman who rarely drove. Having several reasons to visit Atlanta, including hauling away some things that I had left with a friend there long ago, in early May I tossed an overnight bag into the back and set off on the 650 mile drive from northern Virginia to northern Georgia. I considered it a mild test of whether the vehicle can survive a long journey – if it could not handle this trip, it could not handle a trip across the Sahara – and a shakedown cruise (borrowing a nautical term) to see which systems were in good condition and which were ready to fail.
Having an entire weekend to make the trip, I made the 10 hour drive more interesting by taking the longer, off-I-95 route along the foothills of the Appalachians that I have never had any reason to use before and which has some interesting historic sites along the way. Almost the entire trip passed completely uneventfully, with the V-8 silently moving the wagon along (except when I had to floor the accelerator to maintain speed on any sort of uphill stretch – it is an Olds 307), no noise except for a slight wind leak from the misaligned driver’s window frame that I have not bothered to adjust, and overall the usual American land yacht experience.
Surrounded by SUVs at Appomattox Court House, in front of the house where General Lee surrendered
This old-fashioned American wagon felt like the right vehicle to use to visit places like Appomattox Court House, the town in western Virginia where General Lee and his surrounded army surrendered to General Grant, ending the major hostilities of the Civil War. A new BMW or Lexus SUV may be a more modern and “better” vehicle filling the same purpose, but this 28 year old artifact of Americana made the trip competently and comfortably, just as these cars did back when they were new.
The only departure from nominal function occurred approximately 400 miles into the trip, in North Carolina near the North/South Carolina state line. On a highway, the “Charge” warning light lit up, shortly after I noticed a slight vibration from the engine. My immediate thought was that something had gone wrong with the alternator, which I had thought before the start of the trip might be making a slight noise but dismissed as a part of my pre-road trip imagination of possible problems. Concerned about running out of electricity on a highway, I moved to the right lane as quickly as possible and then took the first off-ramp.
Mid-off-ramp, the steering suddenly became very heavy, telling me that I had lost my power steering. The car was far less difficult to steer around the off-ramp without power assist than I expected, but I figured that I would have only one application of the brakes remaining, so when I spotted a repair shop near the end of the off-ramp I headed into its parking lot, heaved the wheel around one last time, and applied the brakes, coming to rest surprisingly gracefully at their front door. All gracefulness disappeared when a cloud of steam soon appeared from beneath the hood.
After a wait for the steam to die down and removing the fan shroud, the problem became obvious: the engine had lost all three of its belts. Pieces of them hung down from where they had come to rest off of their pulleys, and the mechanics at the garage told me that they had seen the broken belts dragging on the ground as I exited the off-ramp. Apparently the alternator had seized, the alternator belt had shredded and burned from friction with the pulley at the other end, and the broken alternator belt had whipped around and violently collided with the other belts, setting off a chain reaction of snapping belts.
Although quite a spectacular failure, it was also a testament to GM’s competence in putting together this car in 1986: the alternator was the original unit and 28 years old, so one can hardly begrudge it finally failing; the warning light functioned properly after 28 years, giving me adequate warning that the failure was occurring; and other than the alternator and belts, everything was fine.
Everything else, even the 28 year old A/C compressor, turned freely by hand. All that was necessary to get back on the road were new belts that were sitting on the shelf, a new alternator that was readily available at the nearest auto parts store (try that if your BMW or Lexus breaks down in a small rural town), and help from a friendly mechanic who had been working on these cars since he was a teenager four decades earlier.
After a couple of hours, one of which was the wait for the alternator to arrive, I was back on my way with a smooth running engine. The rest of the trip passed completely uneventfully aside from losing one of my wheel covers somewhere between North Carolina and Atlanta, which I noticed in the parking lot of The Varsity in Atlanta, where I had what was already the oldest and ugliest car even if all four wheel covers had been present.
Back to the nominal performance of the Custom Cruiser: its fuel consumption during the trip was a consistent 20 mpg, slightly below the 22 mpg highway rating when new. I am quite certain that this old wagon will equal or exceed 22 mpg in the right conditions, because the 20 mpg figure was obtained while driving up and down hills constantly during the southward leg down the Appalachian foothills and then through almost equally hilly country heading north on I-85 and I-95 through South Carolina and North Carolina.
These figures will surprise most people, who automatically assume that a large older American car like this one will be a gas-guzzler. They show that GM actually accomplished its design goals well when it re-configured these B-Body wagons for maximum fuel economy in the 1980s, although today even fans of these cars usually will criticize the small, mildly tuned 307 V-8 as gutless.
Back home in northern Virginia after its first adventure, the Custom Cruiser is back to its usual domestic hauling duties, like an old draft horse still clomping away. It occasionally gets to commune with its own kind, as seen in this photo with two classics that I consider these wagons to be a composite of: a B-Body sedan (a Caprice in this instance) with regard to chassis and driving dynamics, and a pickup truck in terms of utility.
In these meetings, I have learned that traditional American station wagon owners are an interesting subset of the car hobby. With the last of the breed produced in 1996, anyone who still has one usually is a diehard fan who either has owned theirs since new or sought one out as an unfashionable used car, so encountering a B-Body or Panther wagon on the street or in a Home Depot parking lot never fails to elicit an exchange of thumbs up, smiles and compliments.
I have come to think of these wagons as the Obi-Wan Kenobi of cars–not only because they are forgotten but because they are the bearers of a great deal of wisdom, like the reclusive desert hermit Ben Kenobi, and also because many of their owners are older men with white beards. I am optimistic that this one will not leave me stranded in the desert later this year.
Related reading: My Global CC: To The Gambia, In Your Grandmother’s Oldsmobile
Robert, I eagerly await more installments of this series! Very jealous that I am not able to field an entry myself, it sounds fantastic.
Some commenters here will not know what to make of this, a very positive article about a GM product!
When is the actual adventure taking place and what preparations are still left to do?
Some commenters here will not know what to make of this, a very positive article about a GM product!
Only if they (or you) haven’t seen our extensive GM’s Greatest Hits Series. Or not noticed that we’ve been raving over the B-Body here from day one; it’s about the most-loved car here.
Here’s just one of many: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/the-gm-b-body-a-love-song-in-b-major/
And we’re probably the only website that’s ever published a post in praise of the Olds 350 Diesel! https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1978-oldsmobile-delta-88-diesel-in-defense-of-the-olds-350-diesel-v8/
I am flattered, Paul. I enjoyed writing that piece.
I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek, sorry it didn’t translate well…I’m well aware that you don’t play favorites and call ’em as you (and many others) see ’em.
Nice car ! .
Is it a BOP or Chevrolet 307 V-8 ? .
I have a 1980 Cadillac S & S Victoria hearse , it too is a nice driver for long cross country trips .
I’ll be using it to fetch a stash of Nash Metropolitan parts out in the Desert this weekend , comfy seats and effortless cruising , I just don’t like driving Land Yachts .
-Nate
He did say “Olds 307” several times 🙂
Correct Paul ;
Remember : I was there during the earlier years when many OldSlowMobiles went out the door with Chevy engines so I was just wondering .
I have great respect for B-O-P engines .
SBC’s are fine too but there *is* a difference .
-Nate
Chevy 307 died after 1973, it was a more gutless net HP engine than even the 267.
Having had an 84 Olds 88, with the Olds 307, its a dog. It makes a 305 feel like a rocket in comparison.
I owned a 69 chev with a 307 and totally agree. Just made a derogatory comment on another thread.
I believe they would have made excellent boat anchors.
I thought the 307 in my 70 C10 ran quite well. According to the owners manual, it had 157 HP net 200 HP gross. It was much better when I ditched the 3 speed manual for the 4 speed. I towed a lot of weight with it and it never let me down. It kept up with or was faster than mid 70’s 1/2 tones with 350’s and automatics. Agree about the gas mileage, though 12 mpg town or hwy. I did once force myself to go exactly 55 mph on a long flat section of I-5, and I got a whopping 15 MPG. Towing a 32 ft 5th wheel I got about 7 MPG.
Strictly speaking, “nominal” means “in name only,” as for example, 2×4 lumber not actually having a 2×4 inch cross-section, or the Ford 4.9L small-block V-8 was nominally 5.0L. Hence, as a coworker once pointed out, it is more precise (or pedantic) to use the term “typical” or “normal,” which also fits the writer’s sense as well. Electronic spec sheets often cite typical & maximum values.
Kind of sad about the wheel cover; it had been there so long.
Maybe it heard about the trip to Gambia from the other wheel covers and decided it didn’t want to go. 🙂
Neat story. We use our ’86 Fleetwood Brougham over the newer car for those same kind of trips. The Olds Wagon must have a taller final drive than the Cadillac because the 307 in mine never feel phlegmy unless you’re going up a hill. The pull-away from a stop or around town is like a 425. Ones that don’t feel like this usually need a simple fix.
On the mileage one reason it may be lower than you remember is because there is more ethanol in the fuel these days.
The pull-away from a stop or around town is like a 425. Ones that don’t feel like this usually need a simple fix.
The 425 had 320 lb.ft of torque; the 307 had 250 lb.ft. So I assume the “simple fix” to make a 307 run like a 425 is….a supercharger? An NOX bottle in the trunk? A vivid imagination? 🙂
Seriously, have you ever driven a 425?
Spot on.
I’ve compared the 307 in mom’s 84 Olds 88 to the 305 in my 76 Chevelle, and the Chevelle despite the 10hp handicap and the 10 ftlbs of torque less, was downright peppy compared to the 307. As a matter of fact the 305 could at least spin the tires, where the Olds even when new, couldn’t do it unless on ice.
Sure have, my grandfather had a ’78 Sedan de Ville that we went and ordered together at Ronald Moran Cadillac in Torrance. Didn’t drive it much but did once, on a family trip, and I never forget the way something drives.
Paul the absolute torque figure isn’t the only factor, though the 307 has plenty at 255. There are also gearing, torque curve and vehicle weight to consider. My ’86 307 has advantages in all areas and the around town throttle response is nearly identical — you barely touch the gas and it goes. The fact that the 307 can do this with so little noise and vibration, and so much economy, is what makes it the perfect engine for a Brougham that gets driven.
’78 425 ’86 307
1st gear 2.48 2.74
Final drive 2.28 2.73
Peak torque RPM 2,400 1,600
Curb weight 4,365* 3,945
* The big block engine, TH400 and larger Cadillac rear end add weight
What the 307 does lack is horsepower which is why it runs out of steam going up a hill unless you are in the right gear. Easy to deal with just put it in “3” 🙂
So, using all the number above, one gets about 1800 lb-ft of torque at the wheels assuming no torque converter amplification for both engines. However, the 425 did offer optional axle ratios that would have greatly improved performance. (2.73 and 3.08)
Yes but those optional gears on a 425 would have made the already terrible highway economy even worse and for what tire shredding performance around town? Those gears only make sense for high altitude.
What I like so much about the 307 + 200R4 combo is the balance of effortless performance and fuel economy. The super tall gearing in the models folks mentioned above is what kills throttle response.
The optional gears were probably for towing. Consider that the 1994-1996 engine had 330 lb-ft with the 2.93 axle and a 3.0 first gear -> 2900 lb-ft at the wheels more or less. And better fuel economy.
My ’86 307 has advantages in all areas and the around town throttle response is nearly identical — you barely touch the gas and it goes
I’ve never driven a 425 Caddy but I’ve driven quite a few 307-powered cars and I think that you’re high on Rocket V8 exhaust fumes. The Caddy 425 was rated as having 40-60HP more than the 307 (which had the same output rating regardless of whether it was pre or post ’86, so the difference between them is most likely “nominal”). There isn’t any voodoo at work, and it’s not that the 307’s lower torque peak made it more responsive off idle. If anything, the 307 may have had a quicker-opening throttle linkage, but I just remember them being slow and somewhat overmatched by the weight of a Cutlass Supreme if pushed past the typical demands of a senior citizen taking their last ever car down to bingo night.
If it was really the lower torque peak that made the 307 such a pleasant experience around town, then surely the Caddy 368 with it’s 265lb-ft coming on at an even lower 1,400rpm would be even better, right?
I wish folks would start referring to this engine as the 5.0 Liter or something because I’m beginning to think the numbers themselves are what cause otherwise normal, intelligent people to act like frightened school children and talk about voodoo. It’s like they shaved the baby’s head and instead of 666 there sat 307.
– The tip-in on a 5.0L Brougham is the same as in any classic Cadillac, this isn’t an Aerostar
– The engine in your Cutlass was not the same as the one in the Brougham
– The 368 peaks at the same 1,600rpm (not 1,400) but has to put its power through…
I could go on but why bother, facts don’t matter when you’re talking about the Son of Satan.
There’s nothing wrong with the 307, it’s a perfectly good engine for basic transportation purposes. They’re reliable and sturdy and I’ve always liked them simply because, aside from the Northstar, they’re the last of the traditional division-specific V8s. IMO, it’s cool that you could still get a Cutlass Supreme with a “Rocket V8” all the way up until 1988 and even later in the Custom Cruiser.
But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a pretty lifeless engine in stock form. I don’t think anyone here is hating on the 307, we’re all just very suspect of the statement that “the pull-away from a stop or around town is like a 425.”
In order for this to be true, we’d have to throw the numbers out the window and credit their alleged similarity to voodoo, more or less. The 1,600rpm vs. 2,400rpm torque peak isn’t going to favor the 307. The 425 is undoubtedly making 300lb-ft at 1,600rpm already since it’s a fairly low-revving engine with an incredibly flat torque curve itself. The 307 never comes close to that even at it’s peak.
But what about torque multiplication? And the lower weight of an ’86 Fleetwood? Great point! Without looking everything up and getting the exact figures, I’ll trust that both cars are putting roughly the same amount of (multiplied) torque to the drive wheels, which would seem to favor the ’86. The problem with that is you’re neglecting horsepower entirely, which is where the 425 has a huge advantage. It seems like torque vs. horsepower is often viewed as low speed vs. high speed performance and this just isn’t the case. They’re two sides of the same coin; the torque rating is telling you the work that the engine is capable of doing and the horsepower rating is telling you the rate at which it can do that work. Since we’re looking at two low-revving engines that have similar torque curves and put roughly equal torque to the drive wheels, the slightly heavier 425 powered car is always going to be more responsive and powerful because it’s always making considerably more horsepower; more than enough to give it a more favorable power:weight ratio.
In other words, both will probably amble between stoplights at extremely low speeds (like <15MPH) with similar ease if you're barely touching the throttle, but the 425 will no doubt "pull" way harder at any given engine speed because it's a substantially more powerful engine. I think what you actually mean to say is that it requires similar pedal effort to move both cars at a similar rate in very low speed traffic, and I think this is what people always mean when they talk about the effortless torque of otherwise gutless engines.
“I think what you actually mean to say is that it requires similar pedal effort to move both cars at a similar rate in very low speed traffic…”
Yes that is basically it except it applies to freeway speed as well and, in town, I would say low speed not very low speed. You see at 65mph the 5.0L is right around 1,600rpm which is giving you all 255 foot-pounds at the touch of the pedal. And if you’re careful you can gently accelerate without unlocking the converter. Big difference versus the 425/TH400 which is always slipping.
Harder freeway acceleration is not dissimilar either though it requires more throttle and sometimes a smooth downshift from the 200R4. This applies to around town over 45 mph as well.
The 425 and 307 are most different going up a hill because that’s where HP comes into play.
I will do a YouTube video of my car and show some acceleration when I get chance.
Last summer, I drove a 1975 Cadillac across the Rockies and hooned it like a teenager the whole time. This car has the 425 and there is no way a 307 runs like a 425. I have spend about a googleplex of hours driving Olds 88’s with 307’s and they suited the cars perfectly. The relatively good low speed torque made the cars peppy in town but they ran out of breath at about 100 km/h.
For those who missed the childish exploits of an eternal teen:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/road-trip-classic-1978-cadillac-sedan-deville-across-the-great-divide-in-a-grand-old-lady/
Well if it was a ’75 Cadillac you had the 500, not the 425, and the 2.73 rear end. The ’75 weighed about 1,200 lbs. more so net-net it would be just slightly better around town and on the highway than my 307. Up a mountain the 500 wins hands down.
Don’t confuse the 86-90 Fleetwood 307 with the 307 in smaller GM cars. Those always had super tall final drives, not 2.73 like mine, because they were going for max fuel economy.
Also before ’86 no 307 had roller cams and high-swirl heads. The 86-90 Broughams had all those things, ran great, and should only be commented on by people who have driven a good working sample.
You can’t drive the 307 in an ’84 88 with it’s 2.28 final drive and low-swirl heads and say that’s how it would feel in an ’86 FWB. Doesn’t work that way.
Did all the ’86 307s get the improved cam and heads? If so that would make a *lot* of sense. Our 307-powered Parisienne was an ’86 and, while no rocket sled, never felt like as much of a slug as a lot of people on here would seem to assert.
Also, 2.28, really??? Dang. And I thought the 2.73 unit the Malibu used was bad…
The 84 Olds 88’s with the 5 liter V8 came standard with the 3 speed automatic, but a 4 speed overdrive was optional, so exactly what combo anyone may have driven is speculative.
Yes it’s my understanding all 307s got the high-swirl heads in ’86. I don’t think the roller cam did much for performance but it sure as heck contributed to smoothness (and economy). Around town the 307 sounds and feels like a big-block Caddy which you can’t say about the SBCs that came later.
Craig who used to post here (ex GM guy) told us once that the high-swirl 307 and 200R4 overdrive transmission were developed together as a total system which explains a lot. He said it was one of GM’s best powertrains.
I didn’t know you could get a 307 with the 3-speed, I thought they were all 200R4s with overdrive. The 200R4 had a lower 1st gear than the THM400 (don’t know about the THM350) which helped give a 2.73 geared 307 plenty of pull out of the chute. A 3-speed 307 with tall final drive would be painfully slow.
Seriously folks it goes like this in a full-sized Cadillac around town…
500 > 472 > 350 > 307* > = 425** > 305 > 368 > 4100
* 307 advantage over 425: Lower first gear, lower final drive, 400 lbs. less weight, high-swirl heads which bring peak torque down to a ridiculous 1,600 RPM!
** 425 advantage over 307: More peak torque, 320 vs. 255
Someone may say they had a 307 Brougham and it was slow. When I test drove cars before buying I saw a big difference between the cars. Poorly maintained ones suffer a lot which is a shame because the fix is so easy, usually cleaning out the EGR passages.
Non VIN9 307s no matter how well tuned struggle up a hill, but NEVER around town or passing where it’s flat. That’s one of those stubborn internet myths but you CC readers now know better.
There are some misconceptions here. The 425 with carb has its peak torque at 2000 RPMs, the fuel injected version (not standard) was at 2400. Horsepower does not make the wheels on the bus go round and round, torque does.
I think calibrick’s point is that the 307 (in his car) produces nominal performance (not drag racing) comparable to the 425. A lot depends on the standard gearing being installed, not a tow package.
The 500 CID engine was Eldorado only till about 1975 when the performance was reduced by a quite a bit. The 472 from the late Sixties should have out performed it, with higher performance axles too. The 429 could move a de Ville from a standstill though the quarter mile in 17 seconds, the 400 HP 70 Eldorado was only a fraction of a second faster.
The 307’s 140 hp (from my 1990 Cadillac brochure) peaked at 3200, with the torque 255 lb-ft @2000. This tells me that the 307 is pretty much done before it get to 4000 RPMs (probably 3500 or so).
Horsepower does not make the wheels on the bus go round and round, torque does.
I know this is an old comment, but I see somebody else chimed in below just now and I missed it the first time around.
Yes, torque is force and that’s what makes the car “go”, but the implication here is that torque is proportional to “go” and that’s rarely ever the case beyond a purely academic view. A car that’s set up with maximum torque front loaded off idle is good for one thing and one thing only – less pedal effort required to attain low speeds or affect incremental changes in speed. I guess that’s actually two things, and sure enough this is the ideal setup for towing or off-roading, but as far as I’m concerned it’s just an automotive parlor trick when it comes to regular driving.
If that’s anyone’s preference, that’s cool, and it’s as perfectly valid as liking engines that need to rev to 5,000rpm to get into their torque peak, but there’s still no way a 307-powered Cadillac PULLS as hard as a 425 Cadillac unless you add a shitload of qualifiers; away from a dead stop or gently increasing cruising speed, at <20% throttle, on flat ground, at low elevation, not going into a headwind, no heavy loads, etc. – all conditions where that 1,800lb-ft to the drive wheels of a 4,000lb. car will do you as much good as the 800lb-ft or whatever to the drive wheels of a Toyota Yaris, though you may have to apply 30% throttle rather than only 15% to get the same result.
Back in 2005 I purchased an 88 Caprice Estate wagon with 44,000 original miles. Aside from a small dent on the driver’s side fender the car was in very good condition. It was fully optioned out and everything worked including the twilight sentinel and power antenna. All power windows worked perfectly and cranked out ice cold AC. When I first got it the Olds 307 was very weak especially after coming from an LT1 Caprice and P71 Crown Victoria. However, a trip to the mechanic and a conversation about my issue solved that. He woke the 307 up to the point that it performed pretty well and could actually cruise and keep up with traffic in the far left lane on the interstate and was a joy to drive. Gas mileage was not great but still better than my ’91 Suburban.
Now back to reality…I got rid of it after only five months. The reason was it had a fatal flaw not unlike an old Seinfeld episode. There was a terrible odor in the car that I could not get rid off. It smelled biological and stuck to your clothes after driving the car. Even my family and friends refused to ride in it. The upholstery and carpets were immaculate but it had that biological odor to it…it smelled like bad breath, body odor, spit and flatulence combined…it was suggested maybe the car was used to transport dogs but somehow it smelled worse than that! It was also not a funeral, coroner’s or other service car since it did not have tinted windows and had the fake wood sides. So I traded it in for a 95 Caprice wagon which served me well but was not as reliable or well kept (except for the smell) as the smelly ’88. I still think about that car and often wonder what if…
RE : ‘ Death Cars ‘ ~
They’re a serious drug on the market , most get stripped and crushed summarily no matter how new or high end .
Me , I’m a cheap bastard so I’d buy , refurbish and re sell them , as you mentioned : the smell never quite leaves it and when intense , can stick to your clothes .
I remember one in particular : a VW Typ II Squareback , some fool decided to commit suicide in it in the spring up in Nor. Cal. , he did so deep in the woods and after a few weeks when he was pretty ripe , a hungry bear came by , broke through the cardboard driver’s window , climbed in , dragged him to the rear storage area and ate most of him , smearing it all over the entire interior .
Then along came summer , glorious and hot , what was left sort of melted and ran into the various cracks and crevices including filling up the central tunnel , that one that cannot be opened for cleaning .
Some boob bought it from the Sheriff’s auction for $25 , made it run and drove it to L.A. where he sold it to me for $125 , I spent some time flushing , cleaning and gagging, tuned it to the Nth.degree , had it re trimmed and sold it , that took a while , I guess I had it on the lot about a year before I was able to move it .
-Nate
That is so gross, tragic and amusing, though I’m sorry you had to deal with it.
No worries ! .
When you’re a low end used car anything , you have to take it all in stride .
At least I’m no longer digging up 150 year old sewer lines by hand , in January , in New England ! =8-) .
(once you pierce the pipe the heat comes boiling out the hole along with the stench or raw sewage)
There’s many more stories like this one and worse , to come yet .
-Nate
That’s an awesome and horrible story!
Nothing out of the ordinary if you work in a Junkyard or on a Farm….
-Nate
(Former) Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser of mine has been the most reliable car that I ever owned. Same like this…white and with same duties like this in the article does. Its Diesel V8 with the Roosamaster fuelpump worked as a “swiss watch” without any errors. A lad offered a too good buck for it so I couldn’t resist and I sold it. Only the 3-speed automatic transmission had to be serviced one time. In general Custom Cruiser is very reliable and durable.
Great article, amazing how solid these cars can be with little maintenance. But white, argh, on a station wagon, double argh!
One might be tempted to call a white Olds station wagon a “bland yacht” but cars like these probably did more hauling of building materials, furniture and assorted junk than a lot of SUVs and pickup trucks do today. The fact that these wagons did this so reliably, economically and for so long is testament to some sound engineering at GM.
+1 on the Varsity stop. It’s rare there isn’t something CC-worthy in the parking lot.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-outtake/drive-in-outtake-1970-chevrolet-impala-four-door-sedan/
I’m partial to small, high-revvers, but that’s the sort of engine I respect: one which gets similar mileage regardless of strain, and which asks its driver to floor it regularly. I think I’d be fine with an Olds 307 or a BMW eta. 20 mpg is very respectable.
I really like your wagon. I feel your pain on the wheelcover – my 84 Ninety Eight had these covers and they were really, really prone to flying off, especially after a tire jockey would grab an edge with a tool and yank hard. Those things bent easily and their flat shape gave them very little structure to resist warping. In fact, I finally started taking them off myself before taking a car in for a service that would involve wheels.
With a hat tip to Philhawk and Carmine, I have to say that this car and all of the rest of them that GM built like them for the prior 30+ years are the reason that later efforts like the GM-10 cars are so widely panned. These were comfortable, solid, well engineered, well built, durable and easy to fix when something went wrong. This was what people expected when they went into a GM dealer, especially one selling Olds or Buick. All too often, people did not get a package like this when they bought a new GM car in the ensuing 15 years or so. The number of these still in service testifies to the respect they had and still have in the market.
…”overall the usual American land yacht experience.”
The older I get, the more important this becomes. I recently spent a weekend with a rented Chrysler 300 with the excellent 6cyl and 8spd trans. A good combination of American float and better than expected handling. Too bad about the looks.
I loved this story. My favorite part was the breakdown and repair. It behaved well when breaking down, and the repair was easy. Perfect. Makes me want one of these.
This piece, and the first piece that you wrote about your station wagon, are wonderfully written. Back in the 80’s, my Scoutmaster had the Caprice station wagon. I remember the cavernous cargo area and other things that you describe. Thank you for two very enjoyable articles about this wagon!
Savannnah, GA and parts of The Carolinas are crawling with B-bodies, I liked my times there. Swell vehicle and sometime this decade I am going to buy a 91-96 Caprice Estate; maybe even a 1A2.
Back in the late 80s or early 90s my dad’s 87 Saab 900 stranded him in South Carolina for a few days as he was driving to Central New York from a computer convention in Atlanta. The part(s) had to be either sent from Sweden to Atlanta or straight from Atlanta and dad was lucky someone knew how to work on a Saab.
Nicely written, and I look forward to hearing about how it performs in the challenge! To retrofit the A/C system which components are you replacing?
We had a 307 B-body in the family for several years (’86 Pontiac Parisienne) and it was actually quite a good car. The Brougham interior (really! That was the trim level!) was quite comfy–the seats weren’t loose-pillow but they were very cushiony tufted velour.
Reminds me of my CC driving days. The occasional breakdown was always coming, but somehow I was never Found On Road Dead, and I even had a Ford for a while. The water pump, starter, whatever, would be dead the day after at home in the driveway, or I would make it to a good spot in limp mode.
Good luck with your Gambia gambit!
I’ve owned my ’81 Pontiac Bonneville Safari for not quite two years now, and have yet to venture out on a long trip. Your adventure gives me encouragement that with proper planning, I can do it. Southern California, here I come.
Great wagon!
+1. I have seen exactly one 1980-81 Bonneville Safari. It was rough, it was in about 1996 and–it was a diesel!
Excellent article. You are also spot-on in your observation of parts availability.
While I look forward to reading about the trip to Gambia, I’m also going to miss reading about the old girl. She still has a big life ahead of her.
In March, 1983, my family moved from Virginia Beach, VA to Jackson, MS. I was a student at Virginia Tech with no car. My parents owned a 1981 Escort wagon which was too small to carry all the stuff I had in my dorm room. They rented a Custom Cruiser in June 1983 which looked almost like the car above and drove it from MS to Blackburg, VA to pick me up. My father let me drive the Custom Cruiser part of the way back to MS. I enjoyed driving it 70 mph in a 55 zone around Greenville, SC. Cars like the Custom Cruiser are what GM did best, and it is a shame CAFE and changing buyers tastes killed the market for the big wagons.
I like the Obi-wan reference. Did you ever notice in Obi-wan’s hut there was a harley davidson cylinder (aka jug) sitting on a table masquerading as a futuristic decoration?
I would also argue a Paul Cicero from Goodfellas analogy. “Paulie may have moved slow, but it was only because Paulie didn’t have to move for anybody”.
In the background of the last picture, it looks like the 72 Dodge truck from the outtake today.
That is great that you were able to limp right into a friendly repair shop. That sort of luck is a good omen for the big African trip!
I enjoyed that so much. Now I just want to get one like it and head across N America for a few weeks…months…years
Saw one of these today going the other way on a transporter no shot it was gone before I could get my camera fired up, there is a Chev I think in use as a hearse locally and one dead people cartage outfit has a clamshell wagon set up for corpse haulin duty the car is mint I’ll get some shots when I see it out of its hideaway.
Thanks to everyone for their kind comments! My non-responsiveness all day was not by choice; after posting back-to-back stories in one day, I spent the entire day off of the internet since I was away from my computer and too busy to do anything internet or social media related all day. Here are a few thoughts about the comments made yesterday.
The division of opinion about the Olds 307 V-8 is largely the result of different people having different expectations, I think. I agree with many here who state that the 307 is fine off the line and in town because of its torque; this ’86 version accelerates the wagon well from a standing start and up to around 40 mpg, even up steep hills and when heavily loaded. Above 40 mph, on the other hand, anything less than full throttle accelerates the car quite slowly and loses speed up hills, and even flooring it produces less acceleration than anything that I have driven since 1990. On the other hand, the 307 is completely smooth and silent at all times, even when it maxes out the 85 mph speedometer and beyond. So it is perfectly adequate for real-world driving in which the driver is just getting from point A to point B with the flow of normal traffic. It does not need more power, in the same way that a Mercedes 300TD turbodiesel wagon does not need more power, although comparison with newer cars makes most people want more power. After driving this Olds long enough, for over a year, I don’t care that it is relatively slow because it gets there as quickly as anything not driven obnoxiously though traffic, and I do not expect more out of it. The 307 would have been fine to economically propel either a Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham or a station wagon filled with kids or with lumber and furniture.
Regarding further repairs and preparation prior to the journey, barring anything major failing between now and Christmas (the event starts on December 26), they will be minimal. I am doing the minimum possible R12 to R134 conversion (purge the system, screw on new ports and recharge with R134), to see whether the system has any major leaks or component problems. If it does, I will probably just give up and not do anything more. The Sahara in December-January averages around 90 degrees, the wagon’s white color keeps it reasonably cool inside at those temperatures, and the non-A/C ventilation blows a lot of air, so I can survive without the A/C. I will probably scour junkyards for cheap reasonable condition major components that may fail from age along the way (e.g. water pump, brake booster), and stock up on small parts as well. That is probably it, aside from shipping the car to Europe. The radiator hoses are OK, the heater hoses I replaced already as they were starting to crack, and the belts are new. I am trying to keep this journey as low buck and enjoyable as possible!
The orange pickup truck in the background of the last photo is indeed the same one as in the ensuing Dodge D100 Outtake. That last photo and all of the D100 photos were taken in about two minutes.
If you can’t get your a/c in order, you may want to install a water shutoff in the heater hoses, or just bypass the heater core. Otherwise, your ventilation system will be soaking up a lot of engine heat from the heater core. It doesn’t help to be blowing 125 degree air on you on that 90 degree day.
Robert I would definitely get the A/C working. Ice cold air makes the driving experience that much more effortless and special, few cars of this vintage can offer you A/C that doesn’t overheat the engine and you.
You may want to look into something called Freeze 12 if you’re minimizing the number of new components. The oil is same as R12, I believe, which is not the case for 134. The guy I bought the car from did the conversion in Arizona so it must have been pretty good. I haven’t touched it since I got the car (Nov. 2012) and it’s still too cold on anything but Lo.
I had an 84 Ford Country Squire years ago that the previous owner had put freeze12 in. I drove the car for over a year in Arizona and the AC was always good. Don’t know much more about it than that.
Good luck, keep us posted! The only time I did an R12-R134 conversion was on a ’86 Nissan 200SX, which probably had a much less sturdy A/C system than this (and had been inoperable for years), following the exact method you described and it worked perfectly. When I was researching it, I heard all these horror stories and how you need to change the oil, but eventually I just said “fuck it” and it worked for me. I was amazed by how cold it was!
I think this is knowledge that is rapidly becoming esoterica due to the scarcity of r12. I do not recall r12 and r134 having different oil. I have made the change more than once and never changed the oil.
Ref freeze12. I know that there are a couple refrigerant replacements that I have run across on the internet that basically consists of blended propane. I googled it to see if that included freeze12. It did not. Freeze 12 according to my vast unpaid research department (google) is a mix of R134a and HCFC 142. The 12 is just sales stuff. I do not know if the oil is the same as 134. I expect so but I would not be afraid to follow your advice Calibrick.
BTW, I imagine it is a blend to make it more efficient. R134 is not as efficient as r12 and requires a bigger condenser to give the same cooling.
Do not try to phase out r22 in your home with the new stuff nearly so simply. The oils are different and, in fact, have to be flushed with nitrogen before you change. They haven’t been quite so cruel in vehicles…..yet.
It’s not “ugly” and not a ‘gas hog’ at all.
Too many younger folk are brainwashed into thinking any big car before 1990 is such, but then look at all the trucks all over the streets today, driven by same generation.
A big +1! My Town Car is lighter and gets better fuel economy than the Panzer-class Sienna “minivan.” I got 26.1 mpg driving home from Monmouth last Friday night. Amazing!
The car should serve you well on your journey. You might consider replacing the water pump, thermostat, fan clutch and have the radiator recored or at least checked out, with the low miles and age it would be cheap insurance to help avoid a small problem turning into major engine damage. The wagon is in great shape, and 20 MPG hwy is quite good for a large car from the 80’s. May actually save money in the long run, vs a pricy repair on the road.
The AC on these is dead easy and cheap to fix buuuutttt…….
If you neglect to replace the $6 ” Orofice Tube ” , you’ll be wasting time and effort .
I’m still not sure if I prefer the old tech expansion valve over the orofice tube or not .
-Nate
Good to see more on this cool old car. I actually think the old Custom Cruisers are very handsome, not ugly at all. The driving experience in these, especially on long trips, just can’t be replicated. It’s so much more than just a “soft” ride that the cognoscenti claim can be “duplicated” by a Camry. No. Yes, the ride is soft, but no, it is not like this.
You can definitely get above 20-22 mpg out of that drivetrain if you’re cruising on a flat road between 55-65. I once drove from southern Connecticut to Cape Cod and pulled 28 mpg round trip, but, assuming that may have been a fluke, on several occasions recorded mpg between 24-25 on long trips in my 1987 Brougham. I was ocd about keeping the car in tune and having everything done when the manual said to do so, so am fairly certain it was operating at spec.
Re. the torque/operation debate above, I have a hard time believing the 307 runs like a 425. My Buick 350/THM350 moves the Electra off the line faster and up hills with far more authority than the 307/200R4 moved my Brougham. I can imagine a 425-400 combo in a ’77-’79 Cadillac being somewhat like a 3 speed version of the L05-4L60 combo in my ’93 Fleetwood. Where I agree is that all are perfectly adequate for around town or between speeds of 55-75 on a flat highway. Agree that the 9 code 307 just can’t do hills. I remember the transmission downshifting from OD to 3rd to second and falling behind traffic on especially steep hills whereas behind the L05 and Buick 350 there was no downshift at all and the cars could hold 65 mph.
I’ve put over 15,000 miles on my `88 Caprice Estate since buying it in 2011. All during the warm months, and all done reliably. It returns 21 mpg on most of my freeway trips, which is good, as I am currently driving the car 50+ miles a day in my final days with the car before I move to Germany.
I’m going to miss my car very much!
Bon Voyage, Robert.
Great to see an update on this story, I’m very much looking forward to it’s final journey in your hands and I’d give anything to be able to do something like that!
That’s some incredible luck to find a repair shop right at the base of the off-ramp. I had a similar belt failure on a GM product of this vintage once, and though I wasn’t lucky enough to hit a repair shop or parts store, I was able to coast along until I hit a bus route that got me home. I actually had quite a ways to go and a cab ride would’ve been like $70, then the $$ for a tow and a repair bill. Instead, it only cost a swipe of the Metrocard I already had and a ~$12 fan belt that a friend drove me to pick up and back to install. I also managed to lock my keys in the car in my haste to catch the bus, but those good old GM frameless windows were very easy to slide a coat hanger past.
This part is very OT but I’ve got to mention it: I’ve been encountering the word “nominal” all over the place lately. The more common usage, not the space shuttle version. Nominal and also “orthodoxy”, which I first spotted in a CC article a few weeks back. Really strange, because these are words that I’d previously only read or heard a few times per year, yet I see them everywhere lately. Has that ever happened to anyone else, or is this the kind of thing that crazy people say right before they run naked through the streets screaming nonsense about the government and aliens?
For all the 307 commentary lets keep in mind that there were 4 variations on the 307 theme. I see some confusion on which engine people are reporting about in various year cars. Firstly the 307 came in two vin codes “Y” and “9”. Next both of these engines came in non roller/non swirl port heads version versus there roller/swirl port head brothers of later years as follows-
1980-1984 Vin “Y” non roller/swirlport head HP 140-150@3600 RPM torque 240@1600 RPM
1985-1990 Vin “Y” roller cam/swirl port head HP 140@3200 RPM torque 255@2000 RPM
1983-1985 Vin “9” non roller/swirl port head HP 180@4000 RPM torque 245@3200 RPM
1986-1990 Vin “9” roller cam/swirl port head HP 170@4000 RPM torque 250@2600 RPM
I had a 1990 Brougham with the 307 and spent much time getting it in proper tune. Nothing was overlooked. It had the 200R-4 and 2.93:1 rear gears which all 1988-90 307 Broughams were upgraded to from the 1986-87 2.73 gears with 3.23 optional on towing versions. That car with 85K miles would snap your head back in city driving with loads of throttle response but once in the upper RPM range power tailed off quickly. Highway passing power was marginal at best as was hill climbing but the car easily kept up with traffic, always ran smooth and quiet and achieved 23-24 on the open road going 60-65 MPH.
All 1980 307 equipped cars got 3 speed automatics in 200 Metric or 350THM form with hydraulic lockup torque converter. 1981 307 cars came with 200R-4 overdrive transmissions in full size B and C-body cars but had 3 speed automatics in the E-body and G-body cars. After that it was all over the place. C-body’s camera 4 speed 307 only. B-body Buick and Olds cars were 3 or 4 speed with the 307. E-body went to 4 speed only. The G-body got a 4 speed only with the Hurst Olds in 1983 as far as 307’s go up to 1987 when it was called 442 but regular Cutlass G-body cars didn’t have a 4 speed offered until 1984 which very very few came equipped. Regals didn’t get the 307 until 1986 when it came 3 or 4 speed(also for 1987).
To sum up my 1990 Brougham in tip top tune with a 140 HP 307 and std 2.93 rear gears did a convincing impression of a larger 70’s Cadillac with a 425 or 368 off the line with there 3 speed automatics and highway 2.28 gearing. Going from a 2.28 gear to 2.93 is huge and the 307 made but 10 less torque than the 368 1980 Cadillac mill at a similar low RPM. It was at higher RPM’s where the larger mills come into play as stated above.
“To sum up my 1990 Brougham in tip top tune with a 140 HP 307 and std 2.93 rear gears did a convincing impression of a larger 70′s Cadillac with a 425 or 368 off the line with their 3 speed automatics and highway 2.28 gearing.”
It’s funny how folks who have had a 307 Brougham in good working order tend to say what you just did, that the 307 is right up there with the big block engines around down. It’s even funnier what a mind funk this is for the 307 haters and their followers.
Your point about gearing is a simple and important one. Sometimes I wonder if people here understand how gearing works. And what’s with all the commenters confusing the 80-85 engine with the later 86-90, the one with the improved high-swirl heads???
Please keep up the good work Joe. I’m noticing on other boards that more and more owners are saying they want to rebuild their 307s when the time comes, rather than swap to a SBC or Cadillac big block. Word is getting out and the haters are angry! Again thanks, but please be careful out there.