307 upgrades
- Thread starter Dripz1985
- Start date
BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL. Thru 12/2 Everything (Including Calendars!!) in the shop is 20% off. use code BLACKFRIDAY24.
- Status
Clone TIE Pilot said:
I guess I just dont see the point in being so tight about all of this.... This is supposed to be a hobby for most of us. Dont slam people if they dont want to drop huge coin on new school engines. What does it matter to you? Its not your car..... Everyone can have fun and build to their likes and wants. Its great NJ has their laws. Here we dont. I dont care what everyone says. I take my car for inspection every june and it has never failed. It gets a safety inspection and thats it. Want to see the paper that says N/A for emissions?
This topic is about the olds 307. Not the ls1 or any ls motor. All this talk about emissions has nothing to do with were I live. Yes it's nice to know that people care for our envioement but what a classic car without the good smell of gas coming out the muffler/exhaust of your classic ride
Dripz1985 said:
I agree! Thank god you're not a tree hugger LOL. The 307 is a great engine for crusing just not a ton of performance. Its hard to upgrade. Uses buick 350 pistons iirc (same bore)? You could get yourself a 350 olds for the cost of what a rebuild or a chubby or the coveted LS motor is, and at the end end of the day you could still run ccc or go old school and still satisfy the tree huggers... Listen to DoubleV Ill throw a vote in for Olds too. Theres lots of support most just dont speak up.
86-blk442 said:
The laws I posted are federal for all 50 states, not just NJ's laws, NJ only follow what the feds have ordered. Running emissions have a lot of pros besides keeping the air cleaner. For example, other nice things about running EVAP is that it keeps the gas tank cleaner than old school open venting, and keeps the gas flesher too. PCV keeps the crankcase cleaner than open venting, it was invented for the WW2 battlefield to keep tanks rolling. Even from a soley performance standpoint you can't argue about keeping the fuel system and the crankcase cleaner for better reliablity. THERMAC air cleaner warms the engine up quicker reducing wear and stalling, engines wear the most when cold. Emissions aren't all bad.
I don't fall under those laws being from Canada. Even if your car passes with flying colours, why own an awful old dirty car? Newer cars are much cleaner running, period. If you care so much why do you drive a pollution mobile? Our laws are so lax here, my 94 4x4 passed safety without cats. Most G bodies here didn't receive the CCC till 1986. I will eventually do a 3.9 to 5.9 swap in my 2000 Dakota, which should be technically legal but not good for the environment.
1bad79 said:
Ok,I'm throwing my 2 cents in.
This statement is very true and very much in practice. But that is were the Feds draw the line. Ask any individual auto inspection shop who comes around to Inspect them? Their answer will be the state. Their license to inspect is given to them by the state and is taken by the state. So the state regulates inspection as per EPA and the EPA monitors each state. It's always been this way.
The EPA does not deal with individual cases. They concern themselves with the state, corporations, and manufacturers. The EPA's regulations have a ton of grey areas and holes in it.
Example; I used to live in NY. I knew a guy who lived in NJ and had a 9 second 1977 Camaro for street and strip use. His car was powered by a 1968 327 on nitrous. Around 1997 or 98 during his NJ inspection, He told the inspector (Who was not his normal shop that he went to) about his combo and the inspector would not pass him. He went to his normal shop (who were privately owed) and they would not pass him because of the other shop. So he made a big stink about it. Chassis wise, his combo exceeded emissions. He had dual cats in his exhaust 3 1/2 in, a new gas tank that was certified for current cars. (late 90's cars) and a current year aftermarket carb. (Holley) Their issue was the motor. Well the EPA clearly states old motors cannot be used in newer cars, his motor changed status when it was built. The only parts of his motor that was from 1968 was the block. Every internal part was aftermarket and certified by the EPA as "new". They had to pass him. To this day, they have not added anything to the rules that rebuilt engines cannot be put into "old engine" status. They just let it go. C.A.R.B. covers this though. And we all know EPA listens to them like gospel.
Now for us, Taking a stock junkyard motor older than our chassis is a no no. but a rebuilt motor of any previous year will be exempt by the EPA because all of the parts are not from the year of the engine and in fact creates a better running engine than the original. This fact can be proven by just keeping the receipts of all the new parts. Thats why rebuilt older motors almost always exceed the performance and efficiency of the motor's previous state or the motor it replaces.
So My rebuilt 1973 Olds 350 is technically a new motor in my 1988 Olds. And I have a list of my parts receipts to prove it to anyone claiming other wise.
T
My own 2 cents, and I've commented on this in another thread, is that I so *wish* that the law was written to follow the SPIRIT of the intent of clean emissions, and not the LETTER of "this device must be there, that device must be there" etc.
I am PROUD of it when I have a classic that passes emissions way cleaner than what it needs to.
Both my 1974 Dodge Dart Sport (318 2-bbl), and my 1970 Chrysler Newport Convertible (383 2-bbl) passed emissions for the 1975-1980 standard.
My 1972 Buick Skylark (350 2-bbl) passed clean enough to meet the (then) highest standard of 1981-up. The last time I inspected it, with 104,000 on the clock, it had something on the order of 0.09% CO and 15ppm HC.
So, when I do my Cutlass, I actually DO intend to keep the evaporation canister, I'll have catalytic converters, and I will run EGR (that actually improves part-throttle fuel economy on top of the fact that there is NO loss of power, since at WOT there's no vacuum, thus no EGR function), and allows more aggressive timing. It's a win-win on that one. (yes, I know the passages CAN get clogged).
Yeah, I guess I will be breaking the law with the 455. But I will still make sure that it's clean. I would love to boast that my car will have big-block torque, but still have clean emissions and respectable fuel economy.
High CO emissions means I'm running too rich, so I'm losing power and/or fuel economy, aren't I?
High HC emissions means that I'm letting unburned fuel go out my tailpipe, so I'm losing power and/or fuel economy, aren't I?
Call me a miser, I do NOT want extra fuel going in to the cylinder and not giving me something in return. And I certainly don't want to throw fuel out the tailpipe.
Sorry - my rant on this.
Back to the 307..... the 307 I believe CAN make power. It's an engine. Why can't it do as well as the 305 when they started making improvements to it (fuel injection, etc)? Why can't it do as well as the Ford 302 HO? It can. Similar displacement, and, frankly, arguably better heads (Olds heads are arguably why the Firebird/Trans-Am in the late 70s got the 403 in California and not the Pontiac 400)
The parts availability for building up performance with it are probably fewer and far between. It probably requires custom work. But there's no reason it can't be done. Well, aside from cost.
Still, even the roller 307 with decent gearing (and I'm talking maybe 2.73 or 3.08 would be all) and tuned properly, with everything functioning as needed, still feels nice. I remember looking into a 307 equipped 1985 Delta 88 that felt gutsier than any other 307 I'd driven, but the owner had been meticulous about maintaining it. I've also driven neglected 307s that would have almost been put to shame by a good-running 2-bbl 231.
Well-maintained, in stock form, it IS a great cruising engine. Not great for performance only because the cost/benefit sucks. Still, that doesn't mean it can't be done.
I admit I don't care for the 15 miles of vacuum line running all over the place on the 307 - they probably should've gone with more sensors/electronics and maybe TBI or something, but hey, GM didn't ask my opinion back then.
Eh, ok, I think I'm done now.
I am PROUD of it when I have a classic that passes emissions way cleaner than what it needs to.
Both my 1974 Dodge Dart Sport (318 2-bbl), and my 1970 Chrysler Newport Convertible (383 2-bbl) passed emissions for the 1975-1980 standard.
My 1972 Buick Skylark (350 2-bbl) passed clean enough to meet the (then) highest standard of 1981-up. The last time I inspected it, with 104,000 on the clock, it had something on the order of 0.09% CO and 15ppm HC.
So, when I do my Cutlass, I actually DO intend to keep the evaporation canister, I'll have catalytic converters, and I will run EGR (that actually improves part-throttle fuel economy on top of the fact that there is NO loss of power, since at WOT there's no vacuum, thus no EGR function), and allows more aggressive timing. It's a win-win on that one. (yes, I know the passages CAN get clogged).
Yeah, I guess I will be breaking the law with the 455. But I will still make sure that it's clean. I would love to boast that my car will have big-block torque, but still have clean emissions and respectable fuel economy.
High CO emissions means I'm running too rich, so I'm losing power and/or fuel economy, aren't I?
High HC emissions means that I'm letting unburned fuel go out my tailpipe, so I'm losing power and/or fuel economy, aren't I?
Call me a miser, I do NOT want extra fuel going in to the cylinder and not giving me something in return. And I certainly don't want to throw fuel out the tailpipe.
Sorry - my rant on this.
Back to the 307..... the 307 I believe CAN make power. It's an engine. Why can't it do as well as the 305 when they started making improvements to it (fuel injection, etc)? Why can't it do as well as the Ford 302 HO? It can. Similar displacement, and, frankly, arguably better heads (Olds heads are arguably why the Firebird/Trans-Am in the late 70s got the 403 in California and not the Pontiac 400)
The parts availability for building up performance with it are probably fewer and far between. It probably requires custom work. But there's no reason it can't be done. Well, aside from cost.
Still, even the roller 307 with decent gearing (and I'm talking maybe 2.73 or 3.08 would be all) and tuned properly, with everything functioning as needed, still feels nice. I remember looking into a 307 equipped 1985 Delta 88 that felt gutsier than any other 307 I'd driven, but the owner had been meticulous about maintaining it. I've also driven neglected 307s that would have almost been put to shame by a good-running 2-bbl 231.
Well-maintained, in stock form, it IS a great cruising engine. Not great for performance only because the cost/benefit sucks. Still, that doesn't mean it can't be done.
I admit I don't care for the 15 miles of vacuum line running all over the place on the 307 - they probably should've gone with more sensors/electronics and maybe TBI or something, but hey, GM didn't ask my opinion back then.
Eh, ok, I think I'm done now.
So this kid comes on here asking for help and it gets derailed into an emissions discussion? I think he made it clear that he is not interested in that info - can we get back on his topic? You guys are going to scare away a young kid asking for help and possibly sway him to the dark side (imports) :shock:
- Status
BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL. Thru 12/2 Everything (Including Calendars!!) in the shop is 20% off. use code BLACKFRIDAY24.
Similar threads
