opos

I'm waiting for the transporter to pick up my 73 Cutless Supreme and bring it to me...got a "quick question" about the engines in the 73's...it's a 350 4bbl..and a buddy said "that's a true Olds engine and not a generic GMC engine"....I know from old Oldsmobiles from back "in my day"...50's/60's that Olds engines were perhaps better balanced, etc than some of the other GMC engines..or so I've been led to believe for a long time...Did Olds change from the "true" Olds engine around the time of the cat converters (75 I believe) or is it all just conversation...and does it really mean much? I have no reason to question the engine is the original one...it has 71K that is "true...first time mileage" and has had a set of dual exhausts added with Flo Masters..just curious about comments..thanks
Newbie...opos (newbie in terms of the board only..."oldie" in terms of years.

Dave Siltman

Your friend may be referring to the fact in the mid-late 70s Chevy small block V8s were installed in some Okdsmobiles. GM wasn't forthright with the info. and got some egg on their face.

tru-blue 442

73 will be an olds engine, if
it is original to the car.

Kyle's 77 Cutlass

In the high times of Oldsmobile when everyone wanted an olds, they couldn't keep up with production so they put PMD engines in. When customers found out, $hit hit the fan. GM was forced to put in olds rockets in these cars. When you bought an olds, you got a rocket engine. Was supposed to be, at least this was fixed. BTW welcome to CO, enjoy

joe_padavano

Olds used other GM engines at the lower end of the scale for years (Buick V6 and Chevy I6, for example), but the 1977 model year was when Olds started using Chevy 350 motors in place of Olds motors in the Delta 88s - without telling buyers. The story leaked out, lawyers smelled blood (ok, smelled money), and naturally there was a class action lawsuit. The class (car owners) got an extended warranty or some such meaningless token and the lawyers got millions of dollars. Our legal system at it's finest...

hookem horns

X2 on everything above. For an newbie, at quick glance the Olds will have an oil filler tube in front by the water pump and distributor behind the carb. A quick search turned up this link showing the differences between various GM V8's.
http://www.teambuick.com/forums/show...92s-and-70%92s

oldcutlass

The early Chevy v8's had an oil fill tube and all had distributors in the back.

Kyle's 77 Cutlass

Chevy???? I read somewhere they used PMD engines. No?

slantflat

I bought a box of brochures from a garage sale years ago and there was one for the 77 Oldsmobile, and also tucked inside that was correspondence from Oldsmobile saying, in essence, they were sorry the guy felt duped, they stand behind every car they sell regardless of what motor is in it, and I believe they offered him the chance to swap out for a car with a Rocket motor. Pretty interesting I'll have to go dig that stuff up.

Kyle's 77 Cutlass

That would be cool to see

opos

Here's a pic of the engine...it's not clean but will be when I get my hands on it...Pretty clear that it has the oil fill tube, etc..so guess my question is answered...many thanks to all!!
Opos

ThePackRat

Whether you are referring to the 1977 fiasco or the older lower end 6 cylinder stuff ..... yes that would be Chevy.

+ 1

ThePackRat

Olds sure enough ... no doubt there.

Pretty clean motor as it is.

slantflat

Interesting that it doesn't say "Rocket" on the sticker. Perhaps the Chevy motor charade was being planned a few years in advance?

Fun71

Looks good for an original '73 engine bay. And yeah, it has the oil fill tube up front and it's the right color, so nothing to indicate it's other than advertised.

oldcutlass

Definitely an Olds engine, and yes it should clean up nice.

Koda

My grandfather's comment on that scandal was that they were upset they might have gotten a superior engine. If I recall correctly, he had owned an equal number of Chevrolets and Oldsmobiles, so I like the comment.

MDchanic

To answer the PMD question: In 1975 (and maybe '74), Olds offered a "400" engine in the full size line, in addition to the 350 and the 455.
The 400 was a PMD motor.

- Eric

rustyroger

What's a PMD motor?.
I understood GM engines up to the end of the last century were at least partly defined by which division made them. The Olds diesel was offered in every GM passenger car division for some models, the Buick V6 was I believe available in all but Chevrolet, and Chevy and Olds engines were often put in other makes. Perhaps these might be considered generic GM engines?.
Transmissions were another matter, I think at least three different designs were used until the late '60s, by then the TH was standardised across the range, with different internals for various applications. Much more my idea of what "generic" stands for.

Roger.

nsnarsk65cutlass

The 6.6L 403 olds was in the Trans Am in '78 not a big deal.Unless you are one of those manufacturer engine specific racists.PMD Pontiac motor division.Nick

MDchanic

PMD = Pontiac Motor Division.



- Eric

Koda

Poonnnnnnnnchooooooooooo!

Kyle's 77 Cutlass

PMD stands for Pontiac Motor Division

1970cs

quote(rusty roger) "generic"=corporate engine

Pat

rustyroger

Thanks, I'm a little better informed now.


Roger.

Fun71

I think that describes a lot of people, not only here but out in the world too. Imagine how folks would howl if they got a Kia engine in their new Lexus.

Koda

Bigger difference in two engines from two separate companies from two separate countries than two divisions in the same company.

Also, why do people cry about the engines and not the transmissions? I seem to recall the TH350 being used in everything from AMC to Pontiac with the only difference being bellhousings.

joe_padavano

Even I think a T/A needs a Poncho 400 or 455.

By the way, the 403 was used in the T/A for 1977-79. The Olds 350 was also used in Firebirds in Calif in 1978. Of course, the Pontiac 400 was used in D88s in 1975.

Kyle's 77 Cutlass

Cause when you ordered an Olds, you were supposed to get an Olds. A 350 Olds is a different animal then a chevy, buick, or pontiac. Transmission are shared with other engines and companies same as dana rear ends. When it comes to an engine, that defines the car/truck from everything.

joe_padavano

The TH400 was used in everything from Jaguars to Ferraris to Rolls Royces. That's not the point. The engine is the heart of the car. I'll point out that GM's rapid decline in the marketplace pretty much coincides with the use of "corporate" motors starting in the late 1970s. That's when mediocrity and badge engineering set in. Face it, the 1980-1990 B-body wagons are IDENTICAL from the firewall back for all four divisions. All use the Chevy sheetmetal, which is why Custom Cruiser front fenders are different from the sedan fenders. Why pay extra for an Olds or Buick if a Chevy is EXACTLY the same car (using the same engine, by the way - my 86 Caprice wagon has a factory-installed Olds 307).

ThePackRat

Forgot about those oddball 75 D88's .....

Never understood that one.

Maybe it was a test for 1977.

"Hey did anyone notice we put a Poncho motor in their D88 ?"

"No ? - great that's fantastic ..... it'll be smooth sailing in 2 years".

Never cared much about Olds V8's going in other cars ... tho' I can understand the diehard FB/TA fans not being happy about a non-Poncho motor in their cars.

Chevy motor in something else tho .....

Definitely not my thing.

Interesting (& I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong) .....

I don't recall there being much drama in history when the Seville was introduced in 1975 with a FI Olds 350 being the one & only engine.

One would have thought Seville owners would have been just as peeved if not more so ... than the D88 buyers that got Chevy engines.

Koda

I'm not sure I got my point across. I'll try again. The transmission is just as vital to the car as the engine is. It is silliness to say "Oh, this transmission is good enough for all the cars, but these cars must have better ENGINES."

As an automotive engineer, I'll say that you pay for a few things for a higher division car, and ain't none of them the engine. You pay for: better paint, better trim, interior with nicer materials and better fitment, a better sound system, and a few more options. The company I work for, we put the exact same engine tech in base division as we do the luxury division, and all engines have the company, not line, logo. Maybe things were different back then, but I'm betting most of that perception is hearsay and marketing.

I have yet to run across anyone who has anything scientifically rigorous to show that an Olds engine is heads and shoulders above a Chevrolet. I will now give an example of internet BS: "Oh, Olds engines are better than Chevies. They're stronger. Why? Because Olds never had to make a 4 bolt main. Chevy did. Therefore, their engine blocks are weaker and Olds is therefore stronger."

Nothing about different applications like Chevy/GMC made trucks and Olds, at that time, did not......

Point being, it is self defeating to deride another person because his classic car is from a company you consider lesser. Can't people appreciate all classic design? I know I certainly can, and I have more mechanical design knowledge than most of the classic car hobbyists out there, so it bothers me when the Olds guys dump on the Chevy guys, and the Chevy guys dump on the Ford guys, and the Ford guys dump on the Mopar guys and AIN'T NOBODY LOVES AN AMC.

oldcutlass

Hahaha, Koda it starts in preschool, my dad can beat your dad. I agree with Joe, the American manufacturers downfall is when the majors started using corporate engines and rebranded bodies with different trim. Cars also went from being a true luxury to just being a big ticket transportation item. Combined with changes in racing, the lack of excitement in the products, the influx of cheap foreign cars, and the loss of brand loyalty due to everyone building crap from the late 70's until the last few years.

MDchanic

Things were different back then.

Each Division has its own engineering standards and priorities for RPM range, torque to power ratio, smoothness in operation and at idle, and durability.

That's the whole point, which you seem to have missed: At the time, each Division's cars were different from the others'.

GM thought people wouldn't notice, and mixed and matched their engines, people did notice, were angry (not only buyers, but many, many potential buyers, who had read about it in the news), people were considering other brands anyway, for reasons of fuel economy, if nothing else, and this was a final straw for many that pushed them to go look at the Toyotas and Datsuns - What the hell, if you couldn't be sure if the car you were buying had the proper engine in it, you might as well take the gamble and buy, or at least look at, a foreign car for a change.
Since the foreign car makers put quality higher than GM did at the time, once Americans had tried the foreign cars, they saw no good reason to go back, and the rest is history.

- Eric

Lonestar

^^^^ Agreed, and one only needs to look at the basic specifications of the BBC vs BBO to get a clear understanding of the different approaches used in engine design and engineering just within those two divisions.

Koda

Other Eric- Stipulated on the preschool and other points.

Eric- Actually, I get the different parameters completely. What I don't get is how an engine from one division was totally BETTER than the other divisions' engines without that technology being shared because they are all one company. Sure, torque spec is one thing, and root design is another, but whole levels of superiority? Surely not.

Lonestar- mind sharing your sources?

oldcutlass

I agree, the arguments for superiority were actually stemmed from competition. Race on Sunday, buy on Monday philosophy. When the manufacturers were competitive, it brought on that mentality of brand loyalty and the argument on who was better among it's customers. It started on the tracks. In reality, they all built great engines, the popularity of each brand spurred the aftermarket. There was a time when all the GM divisions were in racing competition with each other. Those times were great! In my opinion, from a marketing and sales standpoint Chevy is #1. Just look at any Summit or Jeggs catalog.


The competition was really based on market share in sales and customer retention. GM, Ford, and Chrysler had a program that was stair stepped by consumer age and economic status. They felt that as their customer base aged and their social standings increased they would move up through the different levels of branding. The flaw in the program was that as the customer aged, some manufacturers did not have the means or the desire to attract the younger buyers because they assumed they didn't have to. Most kept on catering to the baby boomers and the foreign car market went after the younger generation.

I think the majority of us older guys are in love with all things cars. Yes, there are a few purists but most appreciate the designs, originality, and the pure awe of older cars. Just sit back, watch, and listen to the people that attend car shows. Go to the vintage drag races and talk to the old timers.

MDchanic

Hey, I never said they were BETTER.

Heck, by modern standards, none of them is more than a tractor motor.

They were different from each other, though, in ways that you could notice when driving them, and this confirmed people's preferences of one over the other, and made the disillusionment that came with the discovery of GM's perfidious engine substitutions that much more intense.
GM had spent over half a century using the differences between its Divisions' engines to sell cars, and now here they were telling people that their engines were all the same and they shouldn't complain or feel ripped off.

If Chrysler's quality wasn't washing down the bowl because of their impending bankruptcy, and F_rd wasn't making cars with the horn button at the end of the signal light lever, more of that business might have stayed in the US, but when people saw what the Japanese were selling, they bought it, and most never came back.

- Eric

Lonestar

Not sure what type of information you're interested in specifically but if you let me know I'll do my best to point you in the right direction. My comment is based on the bore/stroke, rod length & rod ratio, c/d, deck height, rpm limitations imposed by the valve train geometry, intake runner length, head cc's, valve train design, rotational weight, flame travel, and more. This info is available through any source that lists engine specs.

BBO's are limited by their "oversquare" design and relatively low rpm range in applications where exceeding stock parameters is desired. However, this design provides a very smooth, linear torque curve and is quite impressive for your daily driver. History has proven the design of the BBC and it's response to performance modifications borders on legendary. In short, it would appear that Chevy considered the BBC's performance potential heavily during it's evolution. Oldsmobile as we all know, was more concerned with producing a "gentleman's" performance vehicle that combined comfort, performance and handling. in my opinion, the two divisions took an entirely different approach to engine design and ultimately how they marketed their products.

My personal experience includes (drag) racing stock and super stock Olds in the mid to late '60's. While my Dad owned an Olds dealership during that time and we definitely wanted to sell on Monday, my personal choice for a heavily modified racing engine has been a BBC since 1970. The BBC's basic design has allowed the aftermarket companies to produce products and provide horsepower levels considered impossible just a few years ago. That info and a few bucks will buy you a cup of coffee

Hopefully I've answered your question or given some food for thought. If however you were only interested in the "as produced" engines please accept my apologies!

steverw

I may catch some flak over this but let me say..... I love all G M muscle. particularly mid 60's to early 70's. I want an Olds motor in my 442, Pontiac in my 73 TA. I want a Buick GS with a Buick motor. My Vette has a non original Chevy motor 383 stroker.
I think they all made good motors, but in my opinion Chevy made the most durable, versitle, expandable, big power out of small motors and big motors than the other divisions. Starting with the 265 to the small block 400. That's a lot of improvement for the same basic engine. Then the 396,427,454 all great motors imo. But I believe it was the 1970 Buick 455 that had the MOST power/torque of all. I have never heard of Pontiac, Buick, or Chevy having oiling problems except the Chevy early 454's I think did. I just don't think that BOP stuck with the performance aspect long enough to refine their motors like Chevy did. I think that was because of GM corporate decisions. Now Olds and Pontiac are gone, Buick is all luxury, and Chevy and now Cadillac have all the performance to themselves. Cadillac back in the day had some very powerful motors but they did not build muscle cars. Now they have at least one car that's supposedly got more power than the new Vette. Things have changed a lot over the years.
But I do love Oldsmobiles and that's why im here, and that's why im restoring one now. With the original Olds motor! When I had my 67 4 spd. forty years ago I did out run plenty of Chubys, Furds, Ponchos, etc. The only car that beat me was a Hurst equipt RAMBLER Scrambler. He beat me by a fenders length. Those were cool cars too.