Another dumb question but..

[Oregon350Cutlass]

I gotta get another opinion. Will these fit my 83 cutlass supreme?
http://corvallis.craigslist.org/pts/1357771865.html

 

[dan2286]

What engine do you have? You need to find out if those headers were for a g body also.

 

[Oregon350Cutlass]

I got a SBC(I know i know,tisk tisk) LOL The guy sent me a message sayin they will fit but I cant trust that he's not just tryin to get rid of them.I also just found these today on Cl for $75.Will these work? HED-68310

 

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

Check the Heddman catalog and see if that part number cross references to a G body application. If not, walk away. It is not a big enough savings over buying new ones to worry about it. Plus, you still need gaskets, header bolts, etc. I suggest Mr. Gasket Ultra Seal gaskets with a round port for small tube headers. They seal much better than larger, rectangular port gaskets which lack sufficient meat to keep from blowing out.

 

[Oregon350Cutlass]

Why does it skip my year cutlass? http://www.summitracing.com/parts/HED-6 ... 5.7L%2f350
I have a 83 cutlass with a SBC-Will these fit?
Also why does some stuff say not for supreme like the jegs dual crossmember?
Will all these part numbers from JEGS work for my 83?
X-Member-550-41050
2.5"Exhaust System-555-30556
Dynomax Headers-289-85121
Thanks again for everyones help,its much appreciated!

 

[1evilregal]

be careful to read the notes on the jeg's dual exhaust crossmembers... if yours is the same as mine( can't remember the part #, but for regal) the humps won't line up with the headers after install... I ended up having to take mine back out, and getting the dynomax #85121 from Advance Auto( helps I work there, and jeg's said they were on back order and didn't know when they'd get them in....had mine next day 😛 )

HTH, as I'm not sure which ones you have, but if I can help someone avoid the hassle I wen through, it's worth it...

 

[Blake442]

Also why does some stuff say not for supreme like the jegs dual crossmember?

It's a myth... A Cutlass Supreme frame is no different than any other G-body.

Whenever you see that warning, ignore it!

 

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

That warning actually refers to an A body Cutlass Supreme of the early 70's and is not relevant. Also, don't look for a Chevy engined Cutlass, look for a Chevy engined Monte Carlo for reference. Most years, the Cutlass did not have a Chevy engine option and was powered by an Olds 307 or 260 instead. Anything I order for my car that is chassis specific I specify a Monte Carlo and NOT a Cutlass.

 

[88hurstolds]

It's a myth... A Cutlass Supreme frame is no different than any other G-body.

Whenever you see that warning, ignore it!

The frames from 78-83 have a shorter mount point for the trans crossmember on the drivers side and to mount a TH-2004R the drivers side needs a frame extension for the TH-2004R crossmember.

 

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

It's a myth... A Cutlass Supreme frame is no different than any other G-body.

Whenever you see that warning, ignore it!

The frames from 78-83 have a shorter mount point for the trans crossmember on the drivers side and to mount a TH-2004R the drivers side needs a frame extension for the TH-2004R crossmember.

That is true, but it is no different than on any other G body. The issue with the A body is that Olds offset the engine to one side on Supremes in the 68-72 body style, and thus the headers will interfere with the steering shaft. This is a non-issue post 72 as they did not have any differences between models as GM started to make their cars more generic under the skin. Plus, if your car has a Chevy engine in it, it is technically a Monte Carlo under the skin and not a Cutlass (unless it is Canadian) as US spec Cutlasses came only with Olds 307's, Olds Diesels and Buick V6's after 80 or 81.

All in all, it is a simple catalog misprint that continues to propagate an incorrect wive's tale.