85 olds delta 88 = caprice?

Saw one on my local Craigslist when looking for caprices. It's a royal brougham so it's pretty plush.

I know it's a b body but is there anything specifically different about olds than caprices that are better or worse?

Also it has a 307 in it, an engine that I have no experience with. How are they?

The 307 is slow and thirsty, but it won't give you any real trouble. There's most likely 14 miles of vaccum hose on it thats been degrading for the last 30 years and a carb in need of rebuilding or at least fine tuning.

There's not really anything different, aside from trim and bits specific to the Olds. Mechanically, aside from the 307/200-4R, it's all the same, really. The 307 is a super reliable work horse. You could hop one up, but you'd break the internet, so I advise against it.

Unlike everyone else my 307 was nothing but issues mostly related too dumb crap that the previous owners had done.

Awesome.

307 better than the 305s in a lot of caprices? I had a van with a 305.....slow doesn't begin to explain it lol

very similar smog era doggy slowness.

i believe all the buick/olds iterations of the b body have the bigger 5x5 bolt pattern and brakes that belong to the wagon and the 9c1 caprice sedan. the non police or heavy duty sedan caprices got smaller front brakes, smaller 4.75 bolt circle, and smaller 7.5 rear axle.

In reply to patgizz:

The Delta, Caprice/Impala (non-police,) and LeSabre all had 5x4.75. The C/D bodied Regency 98, Electra/Park Avenue, 9C1s, wagons, and Cadillacs had the 5x5. After 1990, they (b-d) all had 5x5, right?

The 307 is not in any way thirsty if its running right. Canadian mpg, I never saw one that wouldn't do 29 mpg on the highway. 30, no. 28, no. 29 cdn mpg.

Esoteric Nixon wrote: In reply to patgizz: The Delta, Caprice/Impala (non-police,) and LeSabre all had 5x4.75. The C/D bodied Regency 98, Electra/Park Avenue, 9C1s, wagons, and Cadillacs had the 5x5. After 1990, they (b-d) all had 5x5, right?

yeah all 91-96 are big pattern. i know when i was little my grandparents had matching powder blue 79ish electras with the wheels on your wagon.

Silly me, I forgot to add the Parisienne/Bonneville. They were also 5x4.75.

It always makes me smile when I see a post like this. I grew up with cars like this. My Dad worked for Chrysler, my two best friends Dad's worked for GM and Ford. So I rode in Furys/Monacos, Impalas/Delta 88s and LTDs/Grand Marquis growing up. Big squishy cars with hub caps. They squealed around every corner if pushed just a little. Most of the time they had small blocks with a 2 barrel carb so they took for ever to get going and had really bad gas mileage getting there. I don't recall MPG ever being much of an issue back then though. Imports consisted of Volkswagen and a smattering of Toyotas and Datsuns. When I rode in/drove my first import, a bone stock VW Jetta which was no rocket either, I think 0-60 was around 11 seconds, it was like a revelation. Hey, It turned, stopped and was sort of fun to drive!!! I have never looked back. I have driven imports with manual transmissions my entire adult life.

Don't get me wrong..............I think it's very cool you like these and are into them. It's just a different perspective.

My grandmother had an '82 Olds Delta 88 Royale. Blue on Blue on Blue. Loved that car. Spent a lot of my childhood in it. Gave her many trouble free years.

I think they actually look better than the Chevrolet/Pontiac/Buick counterparts.

It's the downsized B-body. A 500-CID Cadillac engine fits. The 307 was dangerously close to the Soviet tractor line - where the components that went into them were worth more than what came out.

Hmm, apparently from what I've read the 307 can't handle nitrous at all, which is a downside because it was gonna be my cheap way to make it faster

Antihero wrote: Hmm, apparently from what I've read the 307 can't handle nitrous at all, which is a downside because it was gonna be my cheap way to make it faster

but a 455 Olds is an almost direct bolt in swap, so that solves the problem of getting it running again after you ventilate a piston or 7..

Lol true.old caddy's with 472s and 500s pop up in my area too.

Antihero,

A 305 with a Garrett GT2871R or larger turbocharger is perfect for that car. There's no such thing as turbo lag with five liters pushing it.

I had a 82 delta, very fun car. Took it the the challenge in 04 and then modded after that. Added a rear sway bar to help it to turn, gett better springs on all couners. Do something about the open dif. I swapped the trans for a th350 since I blew the overdrive and 2nd gear. Edlebrock 300 cfm 4 barrel was nice to swap for along with headers and duel exhust will wake the motor up a bit. I also autocrossed mice also. Ckeck out ckosacranoid on youtube for the big brown beast.

Interesting. I'll take a look. 307 in yours too?

We had an '85 Buick LeSabre Limited Estate Wagon when I was a kid, with the 307 and 200-4R. It went through like 3 200-4Rs and blew up the 307 for absolutely no reason at all, despite being properly maintained all its life. An easy way to tell a 307 was the they were all 4-barrel carbureted right up until the end.

The 307 is really an engine that is not worth putting money in at all. Mention one in a GM shop to the old hands and listen to the reaction. For starters, it has compression that is extremely low. And nobody makes pistons for it, so you have to try and make it all up with the cylinder head.

Which brings up another issue: the 307 Olds head flows absolutely miserably and has a siamesed exhaust port for the middle cylinders. You can swap on a 350 Olds head, but the problem is, with it's tiny bore, you can never get a big enough valve to do anything, as it hits the side of the bore or is partially shrouded by the bore. Edelbrock does make an intake that fit's all low-deck (Technically the 307-330-350-403 Olds are not small blocks, just a short-deck of the 400-425-455) engines but they are designed for the 350 and 403 so you end up with a massive port mismatch

Want to put a cam in it? Well, near the end of Olds engine production, Oldsmobile played around with different lifter sizes and the 307 got some oddball ones. The good news is that they are freakin' massive in diameter, which is good for stability, but the bad news is, they were unique to the engine. So you are stuck with OEM lifters. And you are restricted to regrinds of the stock cam, which was tiny.

It also has the traditional weak Oldsmobile bottom end. Windowed main bearing saddles, 2-bolt main bearing caps, massive crank and rod bearings, an oiling system that prioritizes the lifters first and the main bearings last. They also used 2-piece rope rear main seals right up to the end. So, despite the small displacement, this an engine that you want to keep the RPMs low.

Really it's a lot of hassle to not make anymore power. The only good news is that where a 307 goes, everything up to a 455 goes, although that last paragraph is largely true for all Oldsmobile engines. I like Oldsmobile, but their old V8s had absolutely awful oiling systems.

NickD wrote: We had an '85 Buick LeSabre Limited Estate Wagon when I was a kid, with the 307 and 200-4R. It went through like 3 200-4Rs and blew up the 307 for absolutely no reason at all, despite being properly maintained all its life. An easy way to tell a 307 was the they were all 4-barrel carbureted right up until the end. The 307 is really an engine that is not worth putting money in at all. Mention one in a GM shop to the old hands and listen to the reaction. For starters, it has compression that is extremely low. And nobody makes pistons for it, so you have to try and make it all up with the cylinder head. Which brings up another issue: the 307 Olds head flows absolutely miserably and has a siamesed exhaust port for the middle cylinders. You can swap on a 350 Olds head, but the problem is, with it's tiny bore, you can never get a big enough valve to do anything, as it hits the side of the bore or is partially shrouded by the bore. Edelbrock does make an intake that fit's all low-deck (Technically the 307-330-350-403 Olds are not small blocks, just a short-deck of the 400-425-455) engines but they are designed for the 350 and 403 so you end up with a massive port mismatch Want to put a cam in it? Well, near the end of Olds engine production, Oldsmobile played around with different lifter sizes and the 307 got some oddball ones. The good news is that they are freakin' massive in diameter, which is good for stability, but the bad news is, they were unique to the engine. So you are stuck with OEM lifters. And you are restricted to regrinds of the stock cam, which was tiny. It also has the traditional weak Oldsmobile bottom end. Windowed main bearing saddles, 2-bolt main bearing caps, massive crank and rod bearings, an oiling system that prioritizes the lifters first and the main bearings last. They also used 2-piece rope rear main seals right up to the end. So, despite the small displacement, this an engine that you want to keep the RPMs low. Really it's a lot of hassle to not make anymore power. The only good news is that where a 307 goes, everything up to a 455 goes, although that last paragraph is largely true for all Oldsmobile engines. I like Oldsmobile, but their old V8s had absolutely awful oiling systems.

Listen to this guy. He said basically everything I was just about to type.

I remember back when I was slinging parts, some doofus was hell bent on dumping tons of money on the 307 in his 80's Cutlass. He ended up buying a new Performer RPM intake, carb, a cam (and stock lifters after trying to install "performance" ones), and a higher flow fuel pump. I tried to convince him to just find a nice early 70's Olds 350 for the car, and even pointed him in the direction of a local engine builder who had one on a stand ready to go that he was clearing out. But nope, he had to "prove" that he could make power with the 307 "to be different".

In the end, he probably wasted thousands and probably made his car slower. He could have bought that 350 for less than he wasted on the 307.

The 260-403 are dimensionally the same on the outside. The only way to tell what they are is look at the casting numbers on the front of the block. The 400/425/455 are all a lower deck height and have their own intake, heads, and accessory drive, but all the other stuff fits. The 260/307/403 all have windowed mains, and the 350 after 1976 did too.

An easy way to tell if you are looking at a small block or a big block is look at the head casting designation. These are toward the front of the engine on the driver's side IIRC. Ones that are numeric or have a number before a letter are small blocks (for example, a 403 will have #4A heads and a 1967 330 may have #5 heads) while ones with letters there are big blocks (like C for the high performance Olds 442 engines).

I cannot stress enough to ditch that 307 and toss in even a mildly built Olds 350. The solid main Olds V8's are stout engines.

The good thing about that 200-4R is that it can be built to withstand the abuse of a nicely built B-O-P engine.

SilverFleet wrote:

NickD wrote: We had an '85 Buick LeSabre Limited Estate Wagon when I was a kid, with the 307 and 200-4R. It went through like 3 200-4Rs and blew up the 307 for absolutely no reason at all, despite being properly maintained all its life. An easy way to tell a 307 was the they were all 4-barrel carbureted right up until the end. The 307 is really an engine that is not worth putting money in at all. Mention one in a GM shop to the old hands and listen to the reaction. For starters, it has compression that is extremely low. And nobody makes pistons for it, so you have to try and make it all up with the cylinder head. Which brings up another issue: the 307 Olds head flows absolutely miserably and has a siamesed exhaust port for the middle cylinders. You can swap on a 350 Olds head, but the problem is, with it's tiny bore, you can never get a big enough valve to do anything, as it hits the side of the bore or is partially shrouded by the bore. Edelbrock does make an intake that fit's all low-deck (Technically the 307-330-350-403 Olds are not small blocks, just a short-deck of the 400-425-455) engines but they are designed for the 350 and 403 so you end up with a massive port mismatch Want to put a cam in it? Well, near the end of Olds engine production, Oldsmobile played around with different lifter sizes and the 307 got some oddball ones. The good news is that they are freakin' massive in diameter, which is good for stability, but the bad news is, they were unique to the engine. So you are stuck with OEM lifters. And you are restricted to regrinds of the stock cam, which was tiny. It also has the traditional weak Oldsmobile bottom end. Windowed main bearing saddles, 2-bolt main bearing caps, massive crank and rod bearings, an oiling system that prioritizes the lifters first and the main bearings last. They also used 2-piece rope rear main seals right up to the end. So, despite the small displacement, this an engine that you want to keep the RPMs low. Really it's a lot of hassle to not make anymore power. The only good news is that where a 307 goes, everything up to a 455 goes, although that last paragraph is largely true for all Oldsmobile engines. I like Oldsmobile, but their old V8s had absolutely awful oiling systems.

Listen to this guy. He said basically everything I was just about to type. I remember back when I was slinging parts, some doofus was hell bent on dumping tons of money on the 307 in his 80's Cutlass. He ended up buying a new Performer RPM intake, carb, a cam (and stock lifters after trying to install "performance" ones), and a higher flow fuel pump. I tried to convince him to just find a nice early 70's Olds 350 for the car, and even pointed him in the direction of a local engine builder who had one on a stand ready to go that he was clearing out. But nope, he had to "prove" that he could make power with the 307 "to be different". In the end, he probably wasted thousands and probably made his car slower. He could have bought that 350 for less than he wasted on the 307. The 260-403 are dimensionally the same on the outside. The only way to tell what they are is look at the casting numbers on the front of the block. The 400/425/455 are all a lower deck height and have their own intake, heads, and accessory drive, but all the other stuff fits. The 260/307/403 all have windowed mains, and the 350 after 1976 did too. An easy way to tell if you are looking at a small block or a big block is look at the head casting designation. These are toward the front of the engine on the driver's side IIRC. Ones that are numeric or have a number before a letter are small blocks (for example, a 403 will have #4A heads and a 1967 330 may have #5 heads) while ones with letters there are big blocks (like C for the high performance Olds 442 engines). I cannot stress enough to ditch that 307 and toss in even a mildly built Olds 350. The solid main Olds V8's are stout engines. The good thing about that 200-4R is that it can be built to withstand the abuse of a nicely built B-O-P engine.

Oh yeah, I forgot that there was the 260 Olds, which was even worse. Also, would like to point out that you said the 400-425-455 had a lower deck height. They had the higher deck height, it was the 260-307-330-350-403 that had the low deck. Other than that, bore-spacing was the same so "big block Olds" or "Small block Olds" is kind of a misnomer, although not quite to the degree of "big block/small block Pontiac" or "big block/small block AMC" which literally used the same overall exterior dimensions.

In reply to NickD:

Yeah I got it backwards. And you are right, the "small block" and "big block" thing is a misnomer.

Pontiacs are definitely more confusing. At least the only two "low deck" motors are the 265 and 301, and no one likes those, save for some of the turbo 301 guys. You actually have to look at the engine size on the block or run casting numbers to tell what those are! Also the journal sizes are different on the 326/350/389/400 than the 421/428/455.

Streetwiseguy wrote: The 307 is not in any way thirsty if its running right. Canadian mpg, I never saw one that wouldn't do 29 mpg on the highway. 30, no. 28, no. 29 cdn mpg.

My highway cruising matches yours. It was the in town mileage that made it thirsty, not the highway cruising. I drove mine on a 20,000ish mile road trip for a summer. Good times.That car was pushing 300,000 miles when it was totaled by a guy running a red light.

In reply to SilverFleet:

Pontiac, We Build Confusion.