Thank you
I guess the standing line is these cars are only virgins once.
I'd rather keep that than rape it I guess.

Sure the factory truck intake accessories work perfectly fine in the G-body without modification with the Holley engine mount brackets. (the truck intake actually makes more power and torque than the early LS1). I've been running them for years. All of my factory gauges work. For temp you use $25 temp sender from a 1998 firebird with three prongs, you connect that to the temp sensor wire that comes through the fire wall to the bottom prong. For the oil pressure you have two options you can buy an $18 m16x1.5 to 1/8npt adapter where the LS factory oil pressure sensor goes, or you can buy a $25 oil cooler block off plate with an 1/8 npt port for the factory gauge. Harnesses have a tach output wire, you tie that to the beige/brown wire coming through the firewall. You can use the 200-4r and the mechanical speedometer on drive by cable applications. Or a TH350 or TH400, if you want to run a more modern trans that outputs a VSS signal, you can get a converter box, they are a little pricey at $400 or you can get the guts of an early 90's G20 van (the old body style) speedometer and install it into your cluster with the Monte faceplate. If you run a Drive by wire harness you can integrate the factory cruise control buttons on the stalk into the harness, I haven't tried drive by cable cruise, but I'm sure its possible. As for AC, you can get a high mount bracket to use the factory R4 compressor for $115, with a DBW throttle, the computer will compensate for the added load, for DBW you could use the factory high idle solenoid, if you wanted, granted you'd have to make your own bracket. On a cutlass/regal where the compressor is on the passenger side, I believe the factory lines work. On a monte you'll need custom AC lines because you're switching the side of the compressor, but the rest will work. Does the factory AC work on any of these old cars? They pretty much all need attention at this point.

Does that satisfy your curiosity?

I have a 6.0 in my SS with the holley 550 878 sniper stealth.works awesome.

Rick, car is looking great and I see you used the 85 only material when redoing your upholstery. FYI - if your oil pan is the source of the leak, you can change the oil pan gasket without pulling the engine. I did it and it's not a bad job at all.

The CCC is a pretty good system. Bad thing about them is that many POs butcherd them up for various reasons. They also really dislike vacuum leaks but so does most fuel systems including EFI.

Thanks for the props, car gets a lot of love. Most of the paint is original also.
I imagine the engine must be lifted off the mount pedestals to allow this access.
Does anyone if this had an o2 sensor/s from the factory?
When I got it the exhaust system was wasted and I had a stainless system put on with Flowmasters.
Not being sure where I was going with the engine, I had them tie onto the original pipes because they were scared of the flange bolts breaking.

I did get the Brainmaster scanner complete with case, guide and modules as I couldn't connect with 1320 electronics.
I did get both manuals for the engine as well.
Kinda anxious to plug in and see what comes back.

@ Buick Runner, noting the map had no hose to it, I do suspect the hackers have done their magic here.

Yes these cars did originally have O2 sensors from the factory and are required for the CCC system to function. They do sell weld on bungs for O2 sensors.

Cats or no?
Matter or not?
For sure an x pipe is gonna happen with new manifold connections this winter.

It does. Remove the distributor cap, unbolt the motor mounts, then jack up the front of the motor a couple inches.

You talking about the sensor/bracket right behind the coolant over flow tank? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, that's a baro sensor and measures atmospheric pressure. There shouldn't be any vacuum hose hooked up to it.

Its a MAP or Manifold Absolute Pressure sensor which is an electronic vacuum sensor to tell the ECU vacuum level based on load.

Seriously? Although not with 100% certainty, I told you what it is. Your MAP/vacuum sensor is located between the distributor and EGR valve. I've parted an '84 EC and they had that same BARO sensor zip tied to the wires under the dash with only the electrical connector hooked up and NO vacuum hose.

On this 85 the map/baro sensor is fender mounted as shown in this picture behind the expansion tank.
I've never seen one not connected to manifold vacuum.
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219216673661689&set=a.10219216671381632

The CCC layout changed over the years. Early years the MAP sensor was mounted on the passenger fender with a long vacuum line to the carb. Later years put the BARO sensor on the fender and moved the MAP sensor to the back of the intake manifold with a short vacuum line to the back of the carb.

Ahhhh...that clears up some confusion. This url has '85 in it but the sticker clearly shows 1983... https://www.opgi.com/product/image/OP/192810/decal-85-monte-carlo-emissions-50-us-l220282.jpg
Rick has a '85 sticker on his Facebook page^^^... Rick's '85 Emissions

I wasn't confused, its the most common map sensor GM makes and there was no vacuum hose supporting it on this car.
To the best of my knowledge the map and baro sensor are one in the same thing.
To have one tie wrapped and not connected to the engine makes absolutely no sense to me but I will listen first.

How pressure sensors work: https://www.avnet.com/wps/portal/ab...sure-sensors/measurement-types/absolute/

There's a chance that a disconnected (from engine vacuum, that is) sensor is being used to measure atmospheric pressure as a reference. It must be connected electronically, however. Otherwise, it's just a paperweight sitting underneath the hood...

MAP: "Manifold absolute pressure" (sensor.} "Barometric" (sensor.) Both detect pressures of gases and are functionally equivalent. The prefix "baro" is Greek for "weight."

I've got a lot more experience with the TBI and EFI, but I think CCC and TBI shared a lot of GM logic, just different components to control. Based on my experience, early on, they took a reading of the manifold pressure AND a reading of the atmospheric pressure (barometer) and compared the two. since they are both just reading air pressure, it very easily could have been the same sensor used on multiple applications, one connected to a vac source and the other (in my case) sitting on the inner fender sampling atmospheric pressure. By comparing the two readings, you get a better picture of how much throttle you are really giving it. i.e., if you are at sea level and have 31 in Hg and you go WOT, the MAP sensor will ready pretty close to 30". But if you were just close to WOT, you might get 26" and not need as much enrichment as you get on the pre-programmed WOT tables. But the same car on a day with funny weather in Denver might have 26" be the highest reading possible, and you would want it to kick over to the WOT tables. Without a Baromoter reading to compare to, the computer can't tell the difference between those two scenarios. I suspected that after a few years, they figured out that the data gained with the Baromoter reading wasn't actually worth it and dropped it, but I did some googling and it looks like they actually got smarter in later years and started taking the MAP reading before the engine starts and using that value as the Baro setting for that drive cycle.

All that said, I couldn't tell you on yours if the sensor on the fender needs to be connected to vacuum or not. If you find another one near the manifold with a vac hose going to it already, then the other is likely the Baro sensor and needs to be vented to atmosphere.

The emissions decal does show it connected to a vacuum source but calling it a vacuum sensor.
I found the vac source missing when I got the car 2 years ago and put one on it.
It seems this as close as it gets to TBI short of pressurized fuel in my mind being it has a tps and ecu controlled metering rods.
I do speak the efi language but this mongrel is a bit outside of that in its own way I guess.
Thing is a weakling on top, but starts and accelerates pretty well short of a slight flat spot off idle.

Yeah, it seems like the major difference between TBI and CCC is a couple of 14 psi injectors and some simplified diagnostics. I've yet to need a dwell meter for any of my TBI stuff, but it seems like you need a Brainmaster to do much on these CCC setups.
I had a 4.3 TBI in mine for 5 years, an 85 S10 with TBI 2.5 for 5 years before that, did a fair amount on a TBI 350 in my sister's Formula Firebird and another in Mom's Suburban, now I just picked up another 87 Suburban with TBI. The last 10 years has pretty much all been LS stuff though, so I'm having to dust off the TBI memory on this 87 until I get a 5.3 or 6.0 into it next year...

But anyway, good luck on this one, hope it gets sorted out for you.

I still don't get it, on my '87 LG4, there's the same fender mounted sensor and also another one near the dizzy/EGR valve. The fender mounted one does not have a vacuum hose connected the way GM intended. The one on the engine near the dizzy/EGR valve suppose to be connected to a vacuum source, again the way GM intended.
Not my pic but something I found here:

Red scribblings, is this where yours didn't have a vacuum hose connected and you added it? Or are you saying yours doesn't have a vacuum sensor in this location? If I look at your Facebook pictures, it does appear there's a sensor on the engine but the picture gets pixelated when you blow it up.


Certainly not unheard of that a crossover year you could get either configuration but I think I've established in an earlier post that your emissions sticker would indicate whether it's early fender or late engine mounted.

Hi Rick,

"Thing is a weakling on top, but starts and accelerates pretty well short of a slight flat spot off idle." It's been years for me, but that's exactly my recollection of the 305 as well. It dies on top because of its primitive intake manifold and mostly because of its awful, non-flowing heads. Chalk that design up to engineers working mostly in the dark prior to the BC (Before Computers) days of CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics). They believed that the key to low emissions and good fuel economy was using restrictive heads that might have actually worked well for an engine of half the 305's displacement. The 350 with Corvette L98 heads (are you still planning on that swap?) will be a big improvement, but while those heads were fairly good back in the day (the mid-1980s), they're still restrictive by modern standards.

I like Travis' idea of an LS swap. I totally get the idea of keeping with the period-correct design of the original car, but in retrospect, just about everything relating to performance was totally constrained by 1960s design thinking. The factory's goals were transportation comfort for a family of four, good fuel economy, low production cost, and performance, in that order - with the last item of barely discernible consequence. For this reason, I feel no compunction whatsoever about raising the MCSS up to 2021 engineering standards.

But, not trying to twist your arm; that's just my opinion!

Looks like some posters are proving this meme is right. [img]https://scontent-iad3-2.xx.fbcdn.ne...db5beae05a7a17d8e4246001&oe=6168DF6A[/img]

I don't have off idle bogs with my 305, and it screams pretty well. Generally off idle bogs are caused by having the throttle plates too far closed at idle. This throws off the timing of the idle and off idle ports which is a common tuner error.

TBI does not flow as well as E4ME Qjets, its another stopgap technology. The best factory TBI is the 9C1 police package TBI and even that still flows less than a CCC Qjet. The L69s in Montes are more choked down than the L69s in F bodies which had higher flowing aircleaners and exhausts for a 10 HP boost. Likely this was done for product marketing position purposes. Every product must fit in a position in the market.

Personally I would avoid putting a DBW engine in my G body. DBW has lots of issues such as less predictable response and that they are programed to go "lazy" over time to save gas. Its designed to decide what's best for you, a reduction of control and agency.

L98 heads only flow a little more than 305 heads, L98 at .5 lift flow 195, 305 416 heads at .5 lift flow 184, both are intake port readings.

I see classics raped with LS's and cringe honestly, but thats just me.
Not in a hurry, the fuel/elec on this is not right for sure.
Once I get it set up, things will probably change.
Hoping anyway

Despite your not-so-subtle insinuation, Buick, "some posters" isn't me. Anyone could invert the message in the cartoon and paint SBC-1 proponents in a similarly bone-headed light. LS engines aren't magic. Neither are SBC-1s. The former is simply a linear progression from the SBC-1 that benefitted enormously from computer-aided modeling and design, which is one of my specialties.

So I had to shake some cobwebs to get flow measurements on these heads but this seems to be a good source:

http://www.montecarloss.com/community/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=267425

I did some modest porting on a set of new aluminum L98 heads to about 215 cfm on the intake side as I recall and put them on a 350 that previously had 305 heads (same cam.) To say it woke up the engine would have been an understatement.

Of course, all of these 1980s (and prior) heads are poor-flowing by modern standards. On a 350, they all sign-off by about 5krpm. Any LS-era head would spank them...

Even so, Rick - about not wanting an LS in your car, totally understood and appreciated. But still not clear - are you contemplating a 350/L98 swap? If it were me, I'd spend a good chunk of time porting the L98s. It's not hard to get the intake up to about 230/240cfm, and a 350 really needs it.