oldsmobiledave

I am not an expert in the 1964 models but this is one damn fine car!


http://www.ebay.com/itm/Oldsmobile-4...US_Cars_Trucks

redoldsman

That is a very nice car. I think the green and black were unusual colors. 1964 was the true origin of 442 and not four forty two. I like this one. It will be interesting to see what it bids to.

BeenThere

Kind of surprised there is no rear sway bar. I'm sure not an expert though.

Oldsmaniac

There is another thread on this car here from a few days ago. Looks good (almost over restored) but one should be sure it is indeed a true 442 before paying 442 dollars. There are a few things that may have been omitted in the restoration. The seat upholstery surely is a few shades off for one and it is missing the rear anti-sway bar.

66400

May not mean anything but the holes on the inside of the trunk lid for 442 emblem access look crude.

Henry

stan 65 cutlass

inside the trunklid should be a factory cutout for the nuts, someone must have a pic

F-85 4-4-2

According to the cowl tag, the top was originally white.

Diego

Not sure what's so unusual with green and black?

z11375ss

Nice car. I hate the aftermarket batteries. They make the engine bay look like a KMart.

redoldsman

I don't recall ever seeing one or any other early A body with that color combo. I like it I just think it is unusual.

lunaboy

like Henry says may not mean anything , because how many original trunk lids are out there. More importantly the 4 speed console car should have 2LG on the cowl tag not just the L and it looks like a very early build car 10 ? the 442 in 64 was 04-06 late build car. It may have the rear frame 4 holes @ rearend for the upper arms for the stick cars, but like others have said, no boxed arms or sway bar. I bet this car started out a 3 speed cutlass shift on the floor. The date code of the trans should help verify not original. matching eng maybe., but my bet is the trans is not. Most 64 442 's had manual steering also.

bronze66f85

Look closer, the car is green/dark green/green. The wheels are black

Diego

Oh, you mean the two-toning, not so much the color combo - gotcha.

oldsmobiledave

More details added to the eBay auction & photos on his website.


http://www.autobrokercenter.com/1964..._226187461.veh


Note he is tip-toeing...claiming that he does not know if it is real or not. He may have bought it as a real 442 but I doubt that this is anything more than a Cutlass with 442 badges.


Note also the newly posted chassis photos. The rear lower control arms are boxed but not drilled for the sway bar. Too bad the person that did the boxing with the re-po inserts forgot or did not know that the early cars had a short boxing on the underside not the full length boxing of the later cars.


He goes on to talk about why would anyone gather up the correct heads, intake & carb not knowing or revealing that there is nothing unique about the heads & carb between the 290 hp Cutlass engine & the 310 hp 442 engine.


Nice car but IMO it is a Cutlass & one should pay accordingly. He lowered the reserve; see if it sells.

Oldsmaniac

That was big of him to come clean, but he is laying the BS on pretty thick with the year 64 and back then anything goes right? He should have done his research before he bought it. He is still misinformed as said above with the heads, intake carb etc. He doesnt understand why someone would clone a 64 442? Hmmm maybe to maximize profit? Lastly the dual snout air breather appears to have snorkles that are too long... Still a nice car.

marxjunk

he prob didnt know..and is trying to be honest so he doesnt get sued...


it is a neat car....gotta admit that

z11375ss

I would scoop it for 25k if I was in the market and it got offered there. I like the car a lot.

Keener

The 64's were fully boxed. In 65, the boxing stopped shortly after the sway bar bolts and this created a stress point leading to cracks and all out failure or splitting of the control arm. Olds redeemed themselves in 1966 by fully boxing the lower controls.

Keener

The earliest build date would be 3/17/64 (3C on the data plate). I'm glad you pointed out that the 64 frame for the manual cars had multiple holes on the upper control arm frame mount. Many assume that it is a 442 because it has 4 holes, when in reality this was standard for the manual cars. The 442's from 64 had a 336 rear end, so that would be another thing to ask or look for when verifying the car. Sure, you could have opted for a different rearend but the ones I have seen all have a 336 rear and this is the only rear listed on spec sheet.

Keener

The fremont and lansing plant used a fixture/template to mark drilling of the 442 emblems. The trunk emblem looks to be a touch high but it could be the angle I viewed it from. The fender emblems are too far back from the bumper. The template placed these emblems closer to the vertical edge of the front fenders, which along with the october build date leads me to believe that this car is a nice tribute car, but not the real thing. Someone mentioned the rudimentary drilling for the underside of the trunk, but I did not see those in any photo posted by the seller. There was also a template for these holes and because they were drilled by hand, rather than machine, the edges can sometimes be a little rough. None the less, they all appear in the same spot. IMO, it's a very nice looking car. The black top really draws my attention.