davoaz

Stock 72' 350 4bbl single exhaust 7a heads. 2.73 rear gear. I'd like to get the car to 69' or 70' 350 sbc power range. I want a peppy cruiser I can take out of town.


I don't want to go into the bottom end this will be a top end build. I just did a leak down and compression test and the bottom end is good. Cly #1 0 @ 125lbs, #2 0 @ 139lbs, #3 0 @ 125lbs, #4 5 @ 130lbs, #5 0 @ 120lbs, #6 5 @ 130lbs. #7 5 @ 125lbs and #8 @ 130.


Here's what I know or think I know
Exhaust I've already discussed that in another thread.


Intake sound like performer RPM is way to go.


gearing. After build Most likely go with a 3.42 and 200-R


Switch over to HEI ignition.


here's what I don't
Qjet Carb. mine needs a complete rebuild and most likely parts replaced or an alternative replacement. I've never been good at adjusting carbs.


Heads, where I'm at there is not a lot of good machinists around. Do I have my 7a's ported to get rid of egr bump or would I be happier if I spent alittle more and went after market. If I go into my own heads can you change to roller rockers or is to worth it?


Cam, plan a new one but really don't know how to spec one out or read specs and know what I am getting. Don't want it so bumpy I have to start changing converters and loose vacuum for brakes. They're manual drum now but future plans to convert to power disk.

Fun71

Be aware that from the factory your engine had around 8:1 compression ratio so that severely limits the performance potential. You can't go much larger on the camshaft without "over camming" the engine and losing a lot of low RPM power.

Lower rear gears and the TH200-4R will give a lot more low end performance.
Rebuild the QJet as it is a great street performance carb.
Free flowing dual exhaust is a must.

Hawghead

Carb: Qjets are great carbs if you know how to build them and tune them. Personally I don't 'em like just because I've had bad luck with them in the past, but there are a great number of people that swear by them, and they've held a lot of records in stock class NHRA drags over the years. If it's me I'd go with a new Holley. Easy to tune and a size and style for every application, and you'll have much better luck finding a good Holley carburetor guy than you will a good Qjet guy.

Cam: If you have the money I'd suggest a good hydraulic roller cam. There is a reason that all auto manufactures ditched flat tappet cams in favor of them. Cam profiles can be much more aggressive with a roller as opposed to a flat tappet cam with the same valve spring pressure (longer life) and you don't need motor oil with the added zinc and phosphates or oil additives (less maintenance costs) As for profile, for a warmed over small block in a heavy car with an automatic and stock converter I'd look for a cam with higher lift but more conservative duration and overlap. Talk to some of the more popular cam manufactures like Crane, Crower, Iskenderian etc. Tell them what your doing to your engine and what performance returns your looking for and I'm sure they can do a good job of recommending the appropriate camshaft for your needs.

Heads: I just finished reading Bill Trovato's book, and this is a guy who has built some killer small block Oldsmobiles. He suggests that a good low cost performance upgrade head for the small block olds, is a plain old set of iron big block heads. The bigger ports and larger bowls are like getting a free porting job on a set of small block heads. As for the aftermarket, Edelbrock heads will work with the Performer RPM with some port matching or the Victor straight out of the box. Mondello makes a custom set for about the same price as the Edelbrocks but you'd have to contact them about if they would need work to fit the Performer RPM manifold. Additionally both these heads have a larger combustion chamber than your current stock heads (I believe). I think I'm correct in saying that the 7a heads have a 64 cc and the Edelbrocks have a 77 cc chamber. Not sure what the Mondello's have but I'd be willing to bet they have a larger combustion chamber also to support bigger valves without valve shrouding. Either the iron big block heads or the aftermarket heads are probably going to have to be milled or, as Fun71 has stated, your going to lower your already pretty low compression ration even further.

Hope this helps,
Scott

DoubleV

Will this engine have a complete rebuild or not? The big dished stock pistons and hence low CR are the limiting factor in building for power. If you are not getting new pistons you will be limited on what will work well on your engine meaning you need to stay conservative on the cam. I'm not thinking big block heads are going to be the best choice because of the large combustion chambers. IMO, I would just clean up your 7a heads and get a good valve job. Get a custom ground cam made to maintain good cylinder presure. An RPM intake may help a bit. Along with decent gearing and a proper tune ( I would keep the Qjet ), you should see high 13's easily, closer to mid 13's providing you have traction and a nice exhaust sytem ( you didn't mention if you'd want headers or not ). Overall the peppy street cruiser you desire.

davoaz

Since the bottom end is good I figure I'd stay out of it. eventually it will be headers. I want to sort out what to do about the heads first.

drop top olds

There are people that can help you with the Q-jet. Dean Oliver does a great job rebuilding those carbs. He is honest and fairly priced. I have a Dean Oliver rebuilt Q-jet and I have not had to adjust it for over 5 years. In my opinion the Q-jet is the best choice for a street application.
Good luck with your build. Be sure to degree that cam! It makes a difference.

captjim

The problem with that is the pistons, like Double V mentioned. There is simply no way to get compression. You could mill the stock heads to 58 cc, deal with the intake fitment issues, and get reasonable compression. It is going to be tough to do much with 8 to 1 CR.

Fun71

If you're gonna stick with the big dish 23cc factory pistons, there is not a whole lot more "performance" you can get out of the engine.
You could go with an aftermarket cam in the 204 @ .050" lift range for a bit more power.
With this mild cam, your original QJet won't need any internal modifications, just a basic cleaning and re-gasketing (rebuild kit installed).
For this power level, a factory 4bbl intake wold suffice, but the Performer 350 or RPM could be used, just don't expect miracles from them.
A good valve job on the factory 7A heads; maybe some some port work would help the power.

Again, the 8:1 compression ratio is a limiter on the performance potential of your engine.

Barry Jones

Do it right or do it twice ! Rebuild the whole thing , you won't be sorry

cutlassefi

Uhh next time you post "helpful" information try to make sure it's correct. I think the members here deserve that don't you?

s i 442

Ditch the junk quadrajunk carb! Buy a 750 Holley 3310, RPM intake, fresh cylinder head rebuild find a good set of thin head gaskets and bump up the compression, Comp Cams 470/270 magnum cam for power and sound.
Forget the 200 trans and build a turbo 350 with a shift kit, 373 rear end gears.
If anyone think they were breaking NHRA records with a junkyard rebuilt quadrajet then you must have been paid off like the officials!
Or maybe this thread will go 20 + pages why you should go stock everything and the scientific data explaining why nothing aftermarket is better than factory other than Magnaslow mufflers!
So prepare yourself friend.

Fun71

I'm curious about this. The original '72 head gaskets were the thin steel shim style and the CR was about 8:1 so what's your recommendation on how to bump up the compression?

Seff

To make confusion complete, I'm one of the guys that swears by Quadrajets. I rebuilt my own with a kit from Cliff Ruggles' High Performance. Told Cliff what application and carb I had, and he packaged up the right rods and jets. From there it was a matter of hours at the bench and some tuning once I got it on the car. Easy.

captjim

I was going to ask the same thing. The only way is to mill the crap out of the heads, then the intake won't fit.

captjim

This is an odd post, you seem angry about something?? Nobody is breaking any records with a stock 350 with 23 cc pistons, he just wants a little more performance. I personally like Holley's, but there is nothing at all wrong with a properly set up Q-Jet on a driver. Is the 3310 intake the RPM? If so, i disagree with that, too. Again, you seem to be overlooking the fact that even if he mills the heads, his Cr is only going to be 8.5 or so at best, hard to do much with that.

Hawghead

Ok let me clarify.

Cutlassfi,
First, fine, cat. converter poisoning caused roller cams, whatever. The point was if he can afford the additional cost, a roller has many benefits over a flat tappet cam. You and I can debate valve timing aggressiveness and it's effects on valve train longevity privately if you like.

Second, as to phosphates in motor oil, ZDDP = Zinc Dithiophosphate, Phosphate a salt or ester of phosphoric acid, containing PO43− or a related anion or a group such as —OPO(OH)2. But again we can debate chemical compounds and their derivatives offline if you wish. The point was that, with a roller cam the high levels of Zinc and Phosphates in the oil are not necessary and the need for the more expensive oils or additives containing them is negated (maintenance cost savings)

Third, Do I recommend a Victor manifold for his engine? No of course not, I was merely pointing out it's the only Edelbrock manifold that will fit the Edelbrock heads straight out of the box.

Fourth, I've seen several references for the 7a heads with varying values for combustion chamber volume, but if you've cc'd a number of them and are sure they are 68 cc's then I'll take your word for it. Again, the point was the larger combustion chambers in the different heads are just going to lower his already low compression ratio without a lot of work. (Could you even mill a head enough to change a 77 cc combustion chamber to 68 cc's?)

Finally, I didn't know that Isky didn't make an Oldsmobile roller cam, I didn't take the time to look it up, they were just one example of several established, successful and proven camshaft grinders that would be glad to offer the O/P good advice on a cam grind for his needs. Oh and what do you want to bet that if I gave them the specs and was willing to pay the price Isky wouldn't grind an Oldsmobile roller cam for me?

Oh and from now on when you think you need to "correct" me, I'd ask you do it with a little less attitude and a little more common courtesy. I know everyone deserves that

Scott

davoaz

Didn't want to start a flame war. Sounds like money spent on the top end won't yield much for the cost. I haven't rebuilt an engine before so getting the CR up going to cost some coin too. Not sure I am up to the task. It would be nice if I could a least get it faster than my GF's Honda.

captjim

I think that is a fair conclusion. If the engine was a 70 or earlier, it would have "better" pistons and more performance potential. In the meantime, get your Q-jet rebuilt and keep the factory intake. The stock cams were VERY mild, if you want you can upgrade to something in the .450/205 neighborhood and be fine. If you want the car to be more fun to drive, pop in a 3.23 or 3.42 gear.

jag1886

I don't think I would spend a dime on the top end of that engine other than getting everything to run like new. I'd spend all the money on the transmission and the gear, that will make the car run like a totally different vehicle.

cutlassefi

That's why I posted the smiley emoji. If you took it as sarcastic then not sure what to say. It wasn't meant that way.
There are various ways to have fast opening valves. One is the profile obviously, the other is a higher rocker ratio. And there are many flat tappet profiles that are faster than comparable rollers, and vice versa.
And yes I've checked a few 5, 6, and 7a heads and have yet to find one that came off at 64cc, they were 68-70cc, mine included. I installed bigger valves and cut them .025 and ended up with 66cc.

Fun71

I agree with this. My '70 Supreme originally had a 2.56 rear, I switched to a 3.08 rear and it felt like I had a new engine with 50 more horsepower. Later, I switched to a 3.55 rear and again it felt like I had an engine with more power.

coppercutlass

Not to go against what has been said about the top end but to some extent it does matter to invest . I spent some good coin with rocket racing to set up a set of #6 heads. Nothing radical just some big valves and a little bowl work bigger valve springs all new hardware and all that good stuff. I spent about 1600 on the complete top end ., that's everything from the deck surface up . ran out of money and scrambled to put a shortblock together. I used some old cast flat tops with a combination of other lower end components from different years all with in factory specs high and low limits and really outdated cam with roughlt 10 to 1 compression . I ran 13.3's @ 103 with a small carburetor and a really tight converter. Im pretty sure the heads pulled that combo together. Now if you are building a mild cammed 9 to 1 set up I completely agree don't go how wild on the heads I wouldn't even do big valves. I also had a nice little combo like that that ran pretty strong it went 13.86 @ 98 mph through the mufflers and it was a very tame nothing fancy at all. Just my experience.

captjim

That is all fine and dandy, but once again, the OP said that he does NOT want to go into the bottom end, so all that is moot. We can all post build specs and performance results, but very few will be with compression as low as he is dealing with. No matter how much he mills the heads, he won't get close to 9 to 1.

s i 442

Buying a full gasket set from maybe Summit is going to have thick head gaskets, so right now that means decreased compression, so buy a separate set of thinner head gaskets and at least get back up to factory.
Have the heads milled, but I do not know how much, someone can answer that because im not getting nailed for my answer on that.
Port match the intake runners to the gaskets

???
A 3310 is a Holley 750 vacuum secondary carb, if you don't know that how can you disagree with using an RPM intake?
The RPM intake is the choice intake to use for better power with an after market cam and carb.

You can't discourage someone who wants to improve on their engine everytime they ask what to do, no wonder people swap to Chevrolet.
My first 350 Olds engine when I was 16 got a cam, intake and carb change and it ran better, so 8.5 to 1 compression or not there is room for improvement.

coppercutlass

Jim that's where someone has to make the executive decision. Do you want to put the effort into an engine that will not have any growth in potential or should he buy a core engine build it right over time and go ahead and do the rear gear and trans now. I had my heads built thinking way ahead and made sure they would work on what I had and what I wanted to do down the road. Gotta think ahead. Imo buy a core build it over a few years and just drive the stock one and when its time to replace it you have a back up that is dead reliable.

67 Cutlass Freak

Here's my thoughts - the title of this thread "Planning for a future build for more power" There has been some good points made here. It's extremely difficult to work around the limitations of low compression. Every component you purchase will have to be conservative. An Edelbrock Performer intake may work out better for you than the RPM Performer. I would not bother doing the match porting of the gasket. It will not help much and could hurt performance if it's not done right. You need to mock up the intake on the engine and mark the ports. You would be better off spending time in the bowl area of your heads. If it was me doing this car, and I wanted to get some better performance, I would do the rear gear first, then the trans, then I would buy a different core engine to build up. All the components from top to bottom need to work together as a matched set up. Don't let the fact that there's not a good machinist close to you, stop you from finding a good one that specializes in Oldsmobiles.

DoubleV

Is the 'Quadrajunk' going to slow him down? Is the Holly going to boost his power?

This flat out implies bumping up the CR by using thin head gaskets....

That's the cam you would choose for a low CR 350?

Yeah overdrive is stupid!

Who said this?

No, some threads can get rather big though from people needing to correct others false info and bad advice.

bccan

I'm in the gears first camp. 3.4x - 3.7x, limited slip diff would be my first move(appx $1200-1500). Rebuild the Qjet, add ignition curve kit & good tune up. If you still have money to spend I would lean towards a 200-4R transmission built to consider future needs if/when engine gets upgraded (appx $3000 trans, converter, peripherals). The gears & tuningwill transform the acceleration & drivability. The trans would add to acceleration & then tame the gears for open road/highway driving. The only thought I had regarding engine hard parts was maybe 1.7 rockers if they make some that would work with the "conversion" studs. It would add a little lift & rockers would be usable going forward in another build but would it be worth the effort?

The tough part is you have the wrong foundation for the job in that the 72 350 has such low CR it is tough to make mods up top without actually hurting low end power & response. That is the reason I would start w/ driveline mods to improve those characteristics & eventually build a new engine to transplant into the car.

s i 442

Just sell your Oldsmobile and buy a 79 Chevrolet Malibu like everyone else and make some real power for cheap, if you don't your wasting your time.

Yes.

So, you could hurt performance by doing what I suggested but you encourage someone to grab a die grinder and go to town on their bowls especially near a valve seat, yea great advice.

I have used this cam in bone stock engines and its a power house compared to stock, so yes.

Turbo 350 is easier and cheaper to build plus a mild stall is cheaper, over drive trans second gear is a dog.

These quadrajunks and what you build are totally two separate beast especially money wise.

True, all the guy wants to do is work on his car not refinance the house and take 5 years to do it, no need for another engine, and extensive machine work just because its an Oldsmobile, you guys over think, spend and buzzkill anything someone wants to do.

captjim

IMO the RPM is ever rated and the Performer under rated. I had a 9 to 1 355, port work, 210/216 cam, headers, Holley, 3.42 gears and an excellent converter, and it was both quicker and faster with the Performer vs the RPM. I posted the experiment on ROP and it is now gone.

Was you 350 a 71 or 72? There is a big difference, the older 350s had higher compression.

I have seen soooooo many guys over-cam their Olds 350s.

captjim

Once again, an intelligent and well written post from bccan. Well said!!

s i 442

Strange but expected that an Oldsmobile site would think a RPM intake is inferior to a performer, you don't see other GMs making this claim.


71 & 72 are the same.

captjim

To say one intake is better for all applications and combinations is just plain ignorant. My "real world" experience showed me that the RPM is not the best choice for every Olds 350. Olds engines are not Chevys. They make more torque at lower RPMs. I am NOT saying an RPM in inferior, I AM saying it is inferior on a low comp 350 with a mild cam. Why do you think Edelbrock made both? And don't say the Performer is an aluminum copy of the stock intake, it isn't.

I know that the 71 and 72 350s had the same pistons, my question was whether the engine you referenced was one of those or an earlier with higher compression.

s i 442

Yes your right, a Performer is 100% better than a stock heavy iron intake.
A RPM intake was developed because demand was high for something other than a low rise intake.
But this guy said upgrades for future build, so just skip to the better intake for your future rebuild now, because they are not cheap to keep swapping out.

200R4 means different shift lever in your console gear shift, stall converters are $50-100 more, 2nd gear is a dog, so rear end gears at the same time is mandatory.
Cam choice, I have ran lots of cams and the 470/270 works so good on the street with stock gears and stall converter so ad upgrades to those parts and its an impressive street cam with great manners and sound, personally I like bigger cams and parts but........
Quadrajunk= you can take 3 weeks to get the parts, read books, learn to tune it or you can have a Holley on the car in less than 3 days, I HATE quadrajunks period, they are wore out junk, and rebuilding one doesn't make you smarter than a Holley owner, only shows you have more time to waste to make less power.

coppercutlass

Si 442 in regards to port matching if you match the ports to the gaskets they might not line up. We had alignment issues on mine so even if you port match to the gaskets your ports might be misaligned you need to use preussianblue to truly figure it out. Most people think port matching is just open them up to match the gasket but in reality to do it right requires more work. So when 67cutlassfreak said he could hurt performance by doing so he probably took into consideration that a greenhorn was asking about it with out truly understanding what to properly do. In reality for a mild build I wouldn't bother. In regards to the performer vs. Perf. Rpm For a mild build specially on the street the performer will probably make better low end tq. A few years back my friend was running an air gap rpm on an sbc and he went to a performer the engine was more responsive on the low end and he didn't hurt his et. It picked up slightly . If you aren't spinning the engine to the point where you can take advantage of the added volume which on the street you are not then why bother. You drive tq. A used performer can be bought for about 120 and re sold for the same. I have bought and sold many used intakes so you gotta take that into consideration. I bought an rpm for 120 5 years ago and it was near new.

Fun71

I'm gonna circle back around the the beginning on this.

Even though you are not changing the pistons to increase the CR, you can still do a cam swap for better performance, just don't go too big.

The factory cam is .400" lift and 186º duration @ .050" lift, which is puny. Something like a Crane 260 with 204º duration @ .050" lift, one of the many generic .450" lift/204º duration cams, or the Lunati VooDoo .466" lift/207º duration would give a lot more power while still maintaining cylinder pressure for low RPM power. I think any of these will work OK with 8:1 compression ratio without killing the bottom end.

Do a good valve job, use the carb of your choice (I still think your factory QJet would work well, as long as it is not totally FUBAR), add rear gears, and you will have a peppy, reliable car that is fun to drive.

s i 442

Its amazing everything I tell someone to do you have to criticize it yet I didn't make these performance steps up so your really not bothering me much other than me wasting my key pad, yet its OK for you to give out advise.
If you car runs better with a Performer than a RPM then you didn't need an intake swap in the first place.
And I'll say it again, just because you aren't comfortable with port matching doesn't mean its wrong or shouldn't be done, I have done it several times and over time took the intake off and can see the wear flow pattern from the intake thru the gasket to the head and it was perfect only do what you are capable of.
Myself I don't recommend anyone porting their combustion chamber because you can't just start rounding off things and expect anything good to come out of it.
I don't come on here telling people not to do what someone else says unless they start it first.
So when I make a list of what "I" would recommend just don't read it, im trying to help someone, not waste time fighting with someone who wants to **** further than someone else because I have been doing this since the early 80s and have not one fail or complaint yet.
1:Quadrajets are junk, 2: Performer intakes are for stock engines.

coppercutlass

Well in the sbc example I mentioned it started out with an airgap it was a low 13 sec el camino . My friend wanted to do the testing on it so we swapped it. me personally I ran 13.71 with a performer on a 9 to 1 350 that's was very mild. Im sorry but you came here and started critizing everyone else so before you point fingers think bout that . I have ran a few combos and know what works for me and that's all I share. Whats your car that's mentioned in your sig line run ? Just curious. Also go tell sean murphy induction quadrajets are junk they will laugh in your face. I don't find what I said at all criticizing . Who said anything about porting the chamber. I know in the porting thread polishing the chamber was mentioned. You port the runners and in the thread there was a great deal of detail about how to do it and it was advised you can screw up so I don't know what thorn got jammed up your butt but relax man have a beer.

bccan

To Daveoz - Take the opinions & ideas expressed in this thread & consider how they fit with your ideas & goals. We all have different experience both first hand & anecdotal to offer. One clarification on my post - the transmission is not a necessary change, it only allows you to have your cake & eat it too - low rear end gears for strong acceleration & overdrive for more modern driving characteristics & mileage. I long for the days of my 500+ HP 70 SS w/ 4.56's & M22, sometimes! There is nothing like rowing through an M22 & being in 4th before you're across a wide intersection but boy does it suck when you wanna get somewhere on the highway. I spent a year driving my 65 442 between home & school in Providence on weekends w/ 4.11's & M20, man could that sucka pull away from a light & then go about 50mph @ 3 grand. Alas I was a younger & stronger man then!

Your thought of leaving a sound bottom end intact makes sense but as I state below I would leave the top end intact too, build an infrastructure that allows more performance & enjoyment in the meantime, then build an engine to swap in thus eliminating a long downtime or rebuild & mod what you have but in a cohesive manner.

To Captjim - We have been mutual admirers for some time & we both freely offer opinions & advice, especially pertaining to SBO combos. I don't know if your threads regarding back to back results w/ Perf vs RPM from a few years ago still exist but I thought they were good info. I only had 2 BBO cars over time & though the architecture & basics are similar the SBO has slightly different needs in some respects.

To Mark - Don't check out on this thread just yet, you are one of the the most knowlegable members of this forum. Maybe you could offer up some cam advice.

To S I - I don't patently disagree with your ideas, I just have a different perspective. I don't dislike Holleys or their clones but on a very mild 200-250HP engine there is no Holley type carb that will outperform a decently rebuilt Qjet. Period. Not a spread bore, vac sec square bore & especially not a DP. Port matching is never a bad idea except to me when I wouldn't want to crack a single bolt on that engine except the carb flange & distributor hold down.

Edit - My only measured comparison in the Holley vs Qjet arena is on my present engine in the blue car. Engine dyno'd within 8 hp iirc w/ either a Qjet or a Holley, numbers just moved around & changed in different rpm spots. Neither carb was optimized for engine, Qjet had been a little fat on my previous 350 & the Holley was something Bill T had in the shop that he knew would be close. #'s can be more chalked up to variance in dyno runs than carbs IMO. Regardless of what carb may be used it has to be optimized for "that" engine in "that" car, Qjet, Holley, Edelbrock or Stromberg. For a street application all aspects need to work well - choke, idle, transition, cruise, transition to WOT & WOT. All that carb does is measure air & meter fuel according to signals & calibration. My opinion is Qjet has the strongest part throttle signalling & as a result, responsiveness. Come WOT engine only knows 12.8:1 or 12.5:1 & if fuel/air is evenly distributed the brand of carb doesn't matter. Racers tend to use Holleys because they work very well in high throttle applications, OE drivability @ GM was handled w/ Qjets & there is still a large middle ground where both can play nicely w/ a wide range of variables & performance levels.

To Fun71 - I don't discount your cam ideas & run a similar cam in my kid's red car. It's a UD 204/214 @ .050 w/ .525 lift Hyd Rllr. I had it from a previous engine & it works great w/ his 9:1 (measured) large valve 6's, 3.08 & 200-4R. Talk about a near perfect combo for kid's first car that will enter traffic @ any speed necessary but not stupid power even though you still don't want it too kickdown in the rain. Car runs great but has more compression & gear (presently) than OP's. This car went from a Perf to an RPM w/ no ill effects but I can't remember if we ever quantified track results. I have not recommended cam because my thought is to not crack open this engine unless it is to be rebuilt & upgraded. A cam change is no joke to do & can start a snowball of issues w/ lifter removal, degreeing, gaskets, worn distributors, pushrod length & parts compatibility starting w/ rockers & valvesprings.

To Copper - You have offered some legit ideas based on what you have done w/ your car. I definitely agree "you drive torque" and that is what I learned a long time ago - there are not that many times in street driven cars that HP comes into play, it's all about accel from a stop & in most cases you might get to the top end of rpm range in 1 gear, maybe 2? How many threads have we read or people we know (knew?) who over did it in a small displacement, low compression engine & wondered why it couldn't "lay rubber" any more?

Freak & Double V - We're thinking alike. Note - this doesn't make us right but it's our opinion based on what we've learned.

I think I have used up enough bandwith now. I'll be reading, critiquing & learning as others post, I swear I'll only reply if viciously attacked or asked something specific which I will try to answer in a brief manner!

s i 442