Olds 307 VIN 9 cam vs VIN Y torque converter

[kustomkyle]

This may be a dumb question, but would the different camshaft used in 442 Oldsmobiles of the 1980's clash with the torque converter in a VIN Y car? And for reference, I'm referring to the later roller cam (1985+) cars.

Both camshafts are not really performance oriented/lumpy in any way. But would the different stall in VIN Y specification cause any weird problems with a VIN 9 camshaft?

Basically a VIN 9 cam is going in an otherwise unaltered VIN Y car. Everything I've heard so far, the torque converter was more matched to the gearing/higher RPM (like the specific valve springs and balancer) in the VIN 9 car rather than the camshaft.

 

[TURNA]

VIN 9's had a 2004r VIN Y's (USA made) mainly had 200c's

Convertors are not interchangeable

 

[foxtrot]

VIN 9's had a 2004r VIN Y's (USA made) mainly had 200c's

Convertors are not interchangeable

Both of my Vin 👍’s came with the 200-4r’s. They were/are Buicks..

 

[kustomkyle]

VIN 9's had a 2004r VIN Y's (USA made) mainly had 200c's

Convertors are not interchangeable

I never knew anything other than base V6 cars had 200c transmissions.

To clarify, the car is a factory 1986 Buick Regal VIN Y with a TH200-4R, the engine to be rebuilt possibly with an NOS VIN 9 roller cam.

EDIT: I reworded the original post as it was confusing.

 

[69hurstolds]

This may be a dumb question, but would the different torque converter used in 442 Oldsmobiles of the 1980's clash with the torque converter in a VIN Y car? And for reference, I'm referring to the later roller cam (1985+) roller cam cars.

Both camshafts are not really performance oriented/lumpy in any way. But would the different stall cause any weird problems?

Basically a VIN 9 cam is going in an otherwise unaltered VIN Y car. Everything I've heard so far, the torque converter was more matched to the gearing/higher RPM (like the specific valve springs and balancer) in the VIN 9 car rather than the camshaft.

There is a difference in the VIN 9 cams as well. From 83-85, the VIN 9 cams were flat tappet. 84 and below VIN Y was flat tappet as well. As you state, in 1985, VIN Y went roller cam. In 1986, that's when VIN 9 went to the roller.

The cam is very mild regardless of which VIN 9 configuration is used. The bigger bang for the buck is the torque converter and transmission calibrations of the VIN 9, as you point out. Recall that in either event, when you have emissions performance from the regular Cutlass, the VIN 9 was simply a slight step up from that. So in the big scheme of things, it STILL wasn't a great way to go. The 3.73s with the 200-4R were the greatest things for the H/O and 442 that ever happened.

When I test drove the 83 and 84 H/Os from the dealer, along with the 85 442, they had a terrific bang to the shifts, especially at about 2/3 throttle. I remember when I drove my brand new 85 442 home, there was no feeling in the world better than that 1-2 chirp of the tires at part throttle from a stop light. With both tires. I was one of the seemingly handful to order G80. I recall an 83 H/O on the lot with about 500 miles on it that was traded in by a middle aged woman because she swore there was something wrong with the transmission because of the stiff shifts. GM must have heard plenty about that because in 86 they softened up the shifts considerably. But that bang shift didn't last forever. After about 20-25 thousand miles, it was still firm, but nothing like the neck-snap and easy tire chirps it used to have. They border lined on violent. Still fun though.

It wasn't always a hoot though. Way back when I was in the Navy in Charleston, it was a cold February day and they had a lot of roadwork on I-26. It had rained/froze the night before causing icy conditions on the way to work, especially on the overpasses. Obviously, traffic was snarled more than usual, so 2 MPH was typical going. Here's the rub with a bang shift at light throttle....it sucks on ice. I thought I had sh*t under control by shifting into first. We start to move a little better but still slow on a banked curve right over Dorchester Road, then BAM, shifts into 2nd by itself. The rear end shoots out sideways and shitty G-body brakes that are easy to lock up of course, locked up when I touched the brakes. I look down and I was in 2nd, not first. Having limited-slip didn't help on ice AT ALL. Trying to right that ship on a banked curve without hitting the concrete barrier was a PITA. Sometimes, hard shifts aren't a good thing. Even with that scary event, I wouldn't trade the hard shift for anything.

 

[69hurstolds]

I never knew anything other than base V6 cars had 200c transmissions.

To clarify, the car is a factory 1986 Buick Regal VIN Y with a TH200-4R, the engine to be rebuilt possibly with an NOS VIN 9 roller cam.

EDIT: I reworded the original post as it was confusing.

ah, makes sense now. Where'd you get an NOS VIN 9 roller cam? I have a few, but they're tough as hell to find.

 

[olds307 and 403]

I have found factory low stall D9 converters flash stall around 1900 rpm with my mild Olds 350's and 403. I haven't paid attention with the 260 but will once I change the exhaust on it. The Vin 9 cars had a D5 converter rated at 2400 stall, supposedly stalled just over 2000 rpm behind the 307 HO. A basic 2000 to 2500 max stall converter will help performance along with at least 3.23 gears.

 

[olds307 and 403]

There is a difference in the VIN 9 cams as well. From 83-85, the VIN 9 cams were flat tappet. 84 and below VIN Y was flat tappet as well. As you state, in 1985, VIN Y went roller cam. In 1986, that's when VIN 9 went to the roller.

The cam is very mild regardless of which VIN 9 configuration is used. The bigger bang for the buck is the torque converter and transmission calibrations of the VIN 9, as you point out. Recall that in either event, when you have emissions performance from the regular Cutlass, the VIN 9 was simply a slight step up from that. So in the big scheme of things, it STILL wasn't a great way to go. The 3.73s with the 200-4R were the greatest things for the H/O and 442 that ever happened.

When I test drove the 83 and 84 H/Os from the dealer, along with the 85 442, they had a terrific bang to the shifts, especially at about 2/3 throttle. I remember when I drove my brand new 85 442 home, there was no feeling in the world better than that 1-2 chirp of the tires at part throttle from a stop light. With both tires. I was one of the seemingly handful to order G80. I recall an 83 H/O on the lot with about 500 miles on it that was traded in by a middle aged woman because she swore there was something wrong with the transmission because of the stiff shifts. GM must have heard plenty about that because in 86 they softened up the shifts considerably. But that bang shift didn't last forever. After about 20-25 thousand miles, it was still firm, but nothing like the neck-snap and easy tire chirps it used to have. They border lined on violent. Still fun though.

It wasn't always a hoot though. Way back when I was in the Navy in Charleston, it was a cold February day and they had a lot of roadwork on I-26. It had rained/froze the night before causing icy conditions on the way to work, especially on the overpasses. Obviously, traffic was snarled more than usual, so 2 MPH was typical going. Here's the rub with a bang shift at light throttle....it sucks on ice. I thought I had sh*t under control by shifting into first. We start to move a little better but still slow on a banked curve right over Dorchester Road, then BAM, shifts into 2nd by itself. The rear end shoots out sideways and shitty G-body brakes that are easy to lock up of course, locked up when I touched the brakes. I look down and I was in 2nd, not first. Having limited-slip didn't help on ice AT ALL. Trying to right that ship on a banked curve without hitting the concrete barrier was a PITA. Sometimes, hard shifts aren't a good thing. Even with that scary event, I wouldn't trade the hard shift for anything.

Very good info. Yah posi sucks on ice with a rwd. My Dakota needs to be left in 4wd, thanks to the 3.92 sure grip rear end from Oct till April.

 

[TURNA]

Both of my Vin 👍’s came with the 200-4r’s. They were/are Buicks..

Thats because they were Buicks Not Olds

 

[kustomkyle]

I have found factory low stall D9 converters flash stall around 1900 rpm with my mild Olds 350's and 403. I haven't paid attention with the 260 but will once I change the exhaust on it. The Vin 9 cars had a D5 converter rated at 2400 stall, supposedly stalled just over 2000 rpm behind the 307 HO. A basic 2000 to 2500 max stall converter will help performance along with at least 3.23 gears.

So, it sounds like a VIN Y car (D9) converter shouldn't have any trouble with a VIN 9 camshaft. It's more that the VIN 9 (D5) converter along with the transmission calibration, carburetor calibration, and gearing got the most out of the HO package.

I was concerned that somehow the car would surge or need revved sitting at a light or something goofy might happen. But I think that's more stock torque converter mixed with a radical camshaft.

I have 2:56 rear gears, an open differential. Not changing that unless something catastrophic happens in normal driving conditions.