Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One thing I do like about this forum is the chance to learn about some of the older "non-cult" cars.
Definitely have never heard of a 2.14.
Of course it makes more sense at least to me to include tire size and engine RPM capability/"sweet spot" and not talk just ring & pinion. A lot of drag cars running big tall slicks (at least back in the 80's) would run something around a 5.13 but the overall gearing was about the same as a 4.11 with a more normal size rear tire.
One way to get emissions per mile down was and probably still is using a "tall" or low numerical overall drive ratio.
Done right, like late model 'vettes, this does not *have* to make the car a dog, it does require a downshift for maximum acceleration on a "blue road" pass, but I am one that does not see anything wrong with that.
Of course I would imagine the old Cutlass with a 307, slushbox, and 2.14 was pretty much a dog at all speeds and in any gear...just didn't have the technology then.
A 78 Caprice, dollars to donuts, had a 2.73 or higher. The bigger GM cars from about 71 on pretty much got that by default. I have never seen a 2.41 gearset, highest I have seen is 2.54 or some such.
Classic mismatch of rear end gear to, mostly, the cam. Unless you wanted to use the car for a tractor.
2.41. .. Don't doubt me.. ever
1978 models had minor front and rear styling revisions. The engine line-up remained unchanged, but numerically lower axle ratios were used in an attempt to boost fuel economy. The 305 and 350 engines went from a standard 2.56:1 axle in 1977 (2.73:1 for wagons), to a 2.41:1 axle in 1978 (2.56:1 for wagons). An optional 3.08 axle was also available for 350 powered Caprices
1978 models had minor front and rear styling revisions. The engine line-up remained unchanged, but numerically lower axle ratios were used in an attempt to boost fuel economy. The 305 and 350 engines went from a standard 2.56:1 axle in 1977 (2.73:1 for wagons), to a 2.41:1 axle in 1978 (2.56:1 for wagons). An optional 3.08 axle was also available for 350 powered Caprices
Yes, I have heard of a 2.41:1 axle. The '67 Oldsmobile Turnpike Cruiser had that ratio. And the full-sized late-'60s Pontiacs had a 2.29:1 ratio.
Since I do only a little highway driving, I'm glad my 4 cars have an axle ratio of over 3.00 (they are 3.23, 3.21, 3.21 and 3.15).
One thing I do like about this forum is the chance to learn about some of the older "non-cult" cars.
Definitely have never heard of a 2.14.
Of course it makes more sense at least to me to include tire size and engine RPM capability/"sweet spot" and not talk just ring & pinion. A lot of drag cars running big tall slicks (at least back in the 80's) would run something around a 5.13 but the overall gearing was about the same as a 4.11 with a more normal size rear tire.
One way to get emissions per mile down was and probably still is using a "tall" or low numerical overall drive ratio.
Done right, like late model 'vettes, this does not *have* to make the car a dog, it does require a downshift for maximum acceleration on a "blue road" pass, but I am one that does not see anything wrong with that.
Of course I would imagine the old Cutlass with a 307, slushbox, and 2.14 was pretty much a dog at all speeds and in any gear...just didn't have the technology then.
Of course it makes more sense at least to me to include tire size and engine RPM capability/"sweet spot" and not talk just ring & pinion.
I don't know the specs of the 307 Olds engine, but my understanding is they are more of a torque puller than anything, but as I understand they run out of breath very early.
I've owned two cars with the 307 Olds.... a 1981 delta 88 and a 1986 Cutlass. Neither one of them had much in the way of guts. In fact I'll even share my embarrassment when I had a 1996 cavalier pull up besides me on an interstate, and then walk away from me even after I floored the pedal...yeah the Delta just couldn't keep up with that little 2.2 liter.
The 400 Chevy engine was only used in trucks after 1976, ans as someone else stated, is the same size physically as the other small-block Chevy engines anyway. The 401 Buick was from the 1960s. The 403 Olds was only used in B-O-P passenger cars and GMC motorhomes and was discontinued in 1979. The 307 Olds engine was an option for several years and was slightly larger than the SB Chevy, but still leaves plenty of room to work. V8-powered Caprices came standard with the automatic overdrive every year except 1982.
I was including B-O-P, not just Chevrolet. I should have been more clear. These 400-403 engines were gone after '79. The '80 models were reskinned just a bit which was to improve the coefficent of drag for fuel economy. That was the year the Cadillacs went from a 425 to a 368. There were some B-bodies with THM 200 transmissions installed. It may have been just with the 267, though. I read about the THM 200 thing in an old Consumer Guide Used Car Guide. I'm having trouble finding this online, though. (I found a page claiming 307/THM 200 combination Cutlasses were made, though.)
Our family went through five of them, all used, during the 80's and 90's and we fared well overall. One went due to a rusted frame after 12 years of Pennsylvania winters but the others all were sold off to folks who ran them to whatever end they came to.
There really wasn't a common link for problems that I can recall. The '84 wagon needed a starter at around 100k. The '89 sedan developed electrical issues at around 84k and was replaced with a new style '90. The '82 wagon didn't stay around long enough as dad couldn't stand how slow it was, must have had the smallest motor available. The '79 is the one that rusted out. The '87 was traded off when we got the '89, no problems at over 120k.
Mechanical parts are everywhere, body parts are another matter entirely. Around here these ended up crushed at the local junkyard or destroyed at the yearly demo derby. But thankfully these were also "senior crowd" cars and excellent examples with reasonable miles shouldn't be hard to find at all.
I remember they featured a box Caprice in GM High Tech Performance magazine like 7 years ago. Believe it was either a 9C1 police package or a regular Caprice that he just made look like one. He stiffened up the suspension, threw on black steel wheels with lower profile tires, and I don't remember for sure but I think he put in an LT1 with heads, cam, and a couple other goodies. Don't remember if it had a 4L60 or a T56. Car was pretty damn sweet though made close to 400hp and probably got 23mpg. I've always had a thing for those cars and especially the 80's G bodies (Monte Carlos, Cutlass, Regals, and Grand Prixs) they're just good looking cars. They're all generally reliable, and are pretty simple to work on. I would imagine finding one without rust in Michigan would be very difficult.
I had an '85 Caprice 2 door that I ordered new. 305, 4bbl, 3:08 rear and F41 suspension.
It got low to mid twenties mpg on the highway, 17 around town and was still running fine when I gave it away with 208,000 miles on it.
Very reliable car.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
