Leaderboard

Exhaust v1.2. I wasn't happy with how loud it turned out despite the mufflers. I'm sure the 3" exhaust isn't quieting it down at all, but the mufflers are Borla Pro XS which are supposed to be a "quieter" muffler. So, I added a inline chambered muffler from Remco which toned it down a bit. It sounds less like a dumpy bass drum now. The reason for the 3" is that I plan on going turbo next year and figured I'd set myself up for it.

And a few years later and I'm finally building a proper exhaust for it. I bought a universal kit off Amazon and put this together this weekend, along with a couple used Borla mufflers that were given to me. It's louder than I was expecting, but is mostly just too much bass and rumble for my liking. I attribute it to the 3 inch pipe and straight through design of the mufflers. I have since ordered a smaller inline chambered muffler that I'm going to install where the factory cat/ resonator were installed to see if it tones down the deep rumble a bit. Aside from that, does anyone know where I can get new or like new OEM looking exhaust tips for this car or have recommendations for a lookalike? I'd certainly appreciate any suggestions but ideally would like to copy the original style.

Hi, I have a 92 Chevy Lumina Z34 automatic with the V6 DOHC. It's all stock. I am new to fixing cars and got it a year ago. Any tips or suggestions is appreciated. The current thing I'm working on it wiring and brakes.

I'm glad that joke is still funny

I thought the same thing, but then I saw the valance is intact so you know it's fine.

I’m including another article by Huibert Mees. In this article he explains why lowering a car even 1” can have substantially negative effects. All things I have said for decades as well as here recently. The one thing that is not touched upon is lowering the CG without lowering the car!! What happens then? I explain this in my member's post, last Indian, a ground pounder build. The short version is there are ways to move weight & add weight all below CG. When this is done correctly this lowers the CG in a good way without impacting roll centers or suspension travel! And in doing so you may be able to move weight in such a manner like I did to affect weight distribution as well, depending on how you do it. https://www.theautopian.com/heres-how-lowering-a-car-can-ruin-its-handling/

This, kids, is why this website is the fucking best when it comes to W-Bodies.

I would think bolt-on spacer adaptors would be simpler than replacing 20 studs.

The Ford rotor *hat* is shorter, the overall height of the Ford rotor is only 1/4" more than that of the W rotor. The Impala rotors bolt circle is 118mm (4.6"), the W rotor is 115mm & the Ford is 114.5mm (4.5"). The Ford rotors pad surface thickness is near identical to the W rotor thickness 1.040" vs Ford 1.101".

Probably just due to manufacturing issues or Chevy didn't have a need for a car that sized right away in 1988. There were no sedans in 1988 only coupes. Sedans started in 1990 so that might have something to do with it. GM had a lot of issues getting production going with these cars back then. Doraville, GA is where the Cutlass Supreme and later the Lumina in 1990 were assembled. There was a massive retooling going on and there were issues on the line. These cars were all new and GM already put billions into getting these cars built. GM did have the Beretta at the time, so the need for another coupe in 1988 probably wasn't too high on the list.

So I will first start by recognizing that most will doubt what is presented here so I will attach links to some videos from Huibert Mees. He is a renowned suspension engineer, who has done chassis designs for Ford, Tesla & others. I refer back to my earlier post. Most think they know suspension, they think springs, struts, sway bars, (but never think of link ends) & maybe a few other things! And as such think they understand how to build a suspension. If the body rolls it must be springs or CG! So the first order of business; they lower the car’s CG by using a shorter spring! Terrible idea! Why? Even an inch or two down impacts the roll center negatively, while reducing the suspension travel! I am not comparing myself to Huibert Mees, but I have designed suspensions among many other mechanical devices for more than 50 years & have many patents. So I’m not trying to garner accolades. There are so many things to look at with a suspension, but if I pick just one thing to affect cornering & more specifically high speed cornering, it would be sway bars & their end link! Yet many ignore sway bars as a remedy. Even more so, most never consider their relative size vs end link size! If, I simply said to you, have you ever heard of Archimedes & his statement of "Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world." You most likely would say yes! Well to a degree this is your sway bar & end links! Do you honestly think a bar, aka lever, 4 feet or longer & ¾” or more in diameter; in some cases as much as 1 5/16”; can be effectively applied by a secondary lever that is more than 3x smaller!? In some cases like the solid aftermarket front bar of the W-body ll more than 4x smaller. If you did the section modulus of the two you would find the numbers even more staggering! Amanita, without seeing your setup I would be guessing, but by your pictures several things appear to be part of the cause, but all point possibly to two issues. The sway bar & weight distribution. It has been many years since I have worked on one of the first gen W-bodies. So please correct me where I am wrong. Doesn’t the front bar end point attach into a u bracket & rubber bushing? Similar to how the bar attaches to both sides of the frame? If so, the bar as the rectification point! I can explain how. The second is the weight distribution. These cars, as most should know, have a horrible weight distribution. Again there are ways to affect this if you want to put in the work. Last the rear leaf. This can be improved, but it will take work & if you can’t do that work I doubt it is worth it to you to pay to have it done. Last I will attach some pictures, sketches & links that may explain things better, especially the jacking force. The picture of you car is presenting your jacking issue.

I've probably put my Grand Prix through the ringer more in the past decade than anyone else on this forum and, at least for first gen cars, I feel the springs are the weakest link for how they handle. My car has the sportier FE3 suspension and the amount of body roll is still really high. I have a few pictures of it during track days while in a corner and while it doesn't look that bad I can say that you really do feel all the weight being thrown to the outside of the car. Braking is similar, you feel all the weight getting transferred to the front wheels during an aggressive stop and I've had the back end slide out from behind me a few times because of it. I think the best way to improve the handling for these cars is stiffer springs and better tires, but good luck finding a shop that will fabricate a new monoleaf for you. This isn't nearly as much of a problem with second gen Ws since those actually have some aftermarket options, but I do have a '98 Grand Prix and still feel like the springs need to be stiffer on those as well. I will also add that I do think dropping the car by an inch or so will help so long as you have camber bolts or some other way to adjust the angle the wheels are sitting at, the center of gravity in these cars isn't that bad but it could be better. Macpherson struts aren't exactly the most adjustable setup, but the tires would really appreciate the weight coming down on them in corners at a better angle.

Here we go. What will it take to rebuild the mythical 284? Tools, tooling, nonexistent service parts. A couple of us have split the cases on these (including me) and it's a one-way trip even if you don't lose any parts. Manual transaxles have been dwindling in production for years as is the expertise at rebuilding them. Can 3D-printing, crowdfunding, or any other 2018 technologies make this feasible for the handful of us that still have them? What parts interchange from the 282 or from other transmissions?

Thanks for this.

What I do not like about spacers is that more often than not a simple spacer will not be either hub centric or wheel centric. Ideally one wants both inner & outer to be centric to what the spacer is being used on. The hubs design is to take the vertical shock of bumps in the road, the wheel lugs are there to hold the wheel to the hub.

Nice car...1st thing you might consider is removing that led light bar right in the centre of the path for the air intake for the a/c condenser & the rad.

There's a guy in Denver that we used to use a lot that checked mine out that might be worth talking to: Steve's Transmissions and Gears 303-744-7904

Bumping for any more adventures that anyone may have had with the 284. I have about 1000 miles on my LS4/ 284 combo and all seems well. I have two additional 284s in need of different repairs that I could/ would like to combine to make one like-new unit.

Psssst....hint *move the calipers inboard*

I have `99 GTP rims on my `94 Cutlass Supreme, you`ll need at least 1/4 clearance on the front to clear the calipers. I bought a pair off the shelf at Autozone that work great and I didnt need to get longer studs or replace the lugnuts at all. Even transferred the Oldsmobile center cap over to the Pontiac wheels.

Except you can't get any under 1"

Unsubscribe

You're getting contact with the fender when the spring compresses, the shocks if they are single acting they don't dampen when compressing...only when they rebound. If what you have is an acceptable ride (not bone jarring) & the ride height is where you want it (even tho the fender is close to the tire), then what I suggest is a double acting shock that provides dampening in both directions. Seeing as you have mounted coil-overs you may be able to find double acting shocks for that setup.

So far, it rides better. I need stiffen them up a little because the tires scrub on bumps sometimes.

Oh, I didn't know about the J-bodies having the same radio, but it makes sense. I think some 3rd-gen F-bodies used the same radio as the Grand Prix. I'd read the same thing about the amps on the GMT400 forum while searching for info on these, as I'd wondered if I could just replace my CDM module rather than repairing it, but ended up deciding that'd be pointless as probably all of them need those capacitors by now. Anyway, I can confirm the amplifiers are 100% the same between the non-EQ and 5-band EQ models. There is no difference whatsoever between the amplifier stages. They're both using a pair of Delco DM165 2-channel amplifier ICs. In fact, I used my 5-EQ CDM (from GP radio) as a DM165 donor for my non-EQ Cutlass radio because one of its DM165s was blown. There's only one difference between the non-EQ and 5-EQ models and that's the presence of the EQ IC. In the non-EQ model, there are shorting jumpers (yellow arrows in the image) to connect the EQ input solder pads to EQ output pads. That said, there is a newer CDM with different amplifier ICs. You can tell them apart because the amplifier heatsink has vertical fins instead of horizontal. It's very likely that one does have more powerful amps. In this pic, top is old (like I have) and bottom is the newer one. The GMT400 thread did mention the old and new style are completely interchangeable. They communicate via E&C Databus, which has been somewhat hacked. https://stuartschmitt.com/e_and_c_bus/ I think Tech 1 and Tech 2 have the ability to read it with the right cartridge and cable. If it uses a CDM similar like the top one in the previous pic, then I'd bet on it.

My 88 Regal had 14inch alloys from the factory, and the steel wheels I used to run my winter tires on were 14 inch as well...which I believe were originally from an 88 ish Lesabre. Still have those winter tires and wheels kicking around, and had them on the GS last winter for storage while the alloys were out being refinished. They fit without issue. I just automatically assumed they would fit any 88-93 1st gen with factory brakes. Brake Rotors on RockAuto start showing some different fitments for 94+ cars...with some showing they fit 88-96 models, and others showing that they only fit 94-96. Not sure if that's incorrect....or if so some of models/trims started getting the larger 1.5 gen setup up front at some point. So 14 inch wheels on 1st gens is something I was definitely aware of!

No shift release and rocking doesn't help.

Apparently It’s called a spring plate. If I’m seeing things correctly, it seems like it’s used to attach to lower part of a spring compressor.

The noisy PS on my Trailblazer was instantly cured when I removed the original PS fluid, and installed GM "Cold Climate" PS fluid. https://www.amazon.com/ACDelco-10-5044-Climate-Power-Steering/dp/B007Q10PTW/ref=sr_1_2?crid=3OA5JDE3131IX&dchild=1&keywords=cold+climate+power+steering+fluid&qid=1584159184&sprefix=Cold+climate%2Caps%2C239&sr=8-2

Trans fluid? Is that what it had in it from the factory?

What did you pour in for p/s fluid?

I very recently came across some info I was never aware of..... How many of you who have owned a Lumina (base model?) were aware that a 1st gen Lumina could be had with 14" wheels? I was always under the impression 15" wheels were the base wheel diameter....... and will a 14" wheel clear the front calipers?

LOL.......so there wasn't any residual trans fluid at all?