When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
There is a 1969 442 W32 convertible for sale for 156K. The seller asserts that only twenty-five (25) were made. What is a W32 and why does it command such a high price.
I know when I was younger, my classmates father bought his daughter a new '68 442 W30 factory air convertible with automatic.
I bought a new '70 442 W30 factory air convertible with automatic.
Neither of us thought of the value of either of the cars because we had difficulty getting premium gas.
The ebay seller discloses that the factory would not install air conditioning and the air was dealer installed. The car is also automatic
I have never heard of a '69 W32 and I thought there are some other oldtimers that could explain the car.
Last edited by twilightblue28A; August 13th, 2019 at 08:12 AM.
Total W32 production for 1969 (the only year the W32 was produced) was 25 convertibles, 25 sports coupes, and 247 holiday coupes, for a total of 297.
I characterize the W32 option as a sort of detuned W30. It was a W30 with a milder camshaft. Apparently, some people had complained about the W30 not being very street friendly, with a rougher idle.
I have never heard of a '69 W32 and I thought there are some other oldtimers that could explain the car.
In the 1969 model year, 442s with a manual trans got a 350 HP version of the G-block 400. AT cars got a 325 HP version that used a milder cam. W-30s got the same 328/328 cam with either AT or MT that year, so you could not get power brakes on any 1969 W-30. The W-32 was a mid-year addition that used the 350 HP version of the 400 with a beefed TH400. It also got the W-30 O.A.I. system. Since it had the 442 cam and not the W-30 cam, you COULD get power disc brakes on the W-32 (and they were a mandatory option). Due to the routing of the O.A.I. hose on the passenger side, you could not get A/C from the factory, despite the fact that the car made enough vacuum. Due to it's late-in-the-model year release and almost non-existent advertising, only 297 W-32s were sold that year, of which 25 were convertibles. The car in the ebay ad has been discussed here several times, since it allegedly has A/C added by a dealer after delivery of the car. Unfortunately, there is no documentation of that dealer addition.
Here is the only print ad ever released for the 1969 W-32:
The W32 automatic was similar to the '70 W30 automatic because of the milder cam compared to the manual transmission cam. AC and power brakes were not available on the manual transmission but both were available on the '70 W30 automatic because the cam was the same as the 442.
I've been around Oldsmobiles all of my life and I never heard, read about or saw a '69 W32.
What badging did the W32's have?
The W32 automatic was similar to the '70 W30 automatic because of the milder cam compared to the manual transmission cam. AC and power brakes were not available on the manual transmission but both were available on the '70 W30 automatic because the cam was the same as the 442.
Exactly. The 1969 W-32 was replaced in the marketplace by the 1970 W-30 AT cars with the watered-down cam.
I've been around Oldsmobiles all of my life and I never heard, read about or saw a '69 W32.
What badging did the W32's have?
I learned something tonight. As a seperate but related issue my '70 W30 automatic, street tires and stock was running 13.20-13.30's consistently at Atco, NJ, Cecil County, Englishtown dragstrips. I changed to the manual transmission cam and my car died. The best I could do was mid 14's. I know the decreased performance was directly attributable to the manual transmission cam, higher lift, higher duration.
I put the 442 cam in the car and I saw my elapsed time and MPH return.
Why specifically?
Joe, so the 68 H/O's with AC I think had the same AC OAI collision issue, but, being an converted car, I guess they rolled with it. Hose did look a little smushed on the one I looked it.
I learned something tonight. As a seperate but related issue my '70 W30 automatic, street tires and stock was running 13.20-13.30's consistently at Atco, NJ, Cecil County, Englishtown dragstrips. I changed to the manual transmission cam and my car died. The best I could do was mid 14's. I know the decreased performance was directly attributable to the manual transmission cam, higher lift, higher duration.
I put the 442 cam in the car and I saw my elapsed time and MPH return.
Why specifically?
I'll take a guess at a couple things. 1. You didn't change the torque converter. 2. You didn't change the primary power piston spring.
.......Just my two cents worth.
I'll take a guess at a couple things. 1. You didn't change the torque converter. 2. You didn't change the primary power piston spring.
.......Just my two cents worth.
Ralph,
I had the same factory OW transmission in the car and the carburetor was re-jetted with the automatic and manual transmission cams. The car wouldn't perform with the manual transmission cam.
I'll take a guess at a couple things. 1. You didn't change the torque converter. 2. You didn't change the primary power piston spring.
.......Just my two cents worth.
Originally Posted by twilightblue28A
Ralph,
I had the same factory OW transmission in the car and the carburetor was re-jetted with the automatic and manual transmission cams. The car wouldn't perform with the manual transmission cam.
Exactly what "manual transmission cam" are you referring to ? What jets did you use ? What the highest manifold vacuum you were getting ?
Exactly what "manual transmission cam" are you referring to ? What jets did you use ? What the highest manifold vacuum you were getting ?
I know that I installed the '70 W30 4 speed cam. The jets were consistent irrespective of the cams; both were richer. I don't know the manifold vacuum. What I do know was that my car ran like a dog, ET was 1.5 seconds slower and significantly lower MPH after installing the '70 W30 manual transmission cam. I also know that when I put the 442 automatic cam back in the engine, my ET dropped back to 13.20-13.30 and 106-108 mph in a quarter mile track. Still blows my mind. I expected lower ET and greater MPH with the '70 W30 manual transmission cam.
I guess Oldsmobile Engineers knew and that's the reason they installed the automatic 442 cam in the automatic W30's.
I still don't understand the reason for the lack of performance, but I was glad that time trials and the day ended.
Last edited by twilightblue28A; August 13th, 2019 at 09:37 PM.
I know that I installed the '70 W30 4 speed cam. The jets were consistent irrespective of the cams; both were richer. I don't know the manifold vacuum. What I do know was that my car ran like a dog, ET was 1.5 seconds slower and significantly lower MPH after installing the '70 W30 manual transmission cam. I also know that when I put the 442 automatic cam back in the engine, my ET dropped back to 13.20-13.30 and 106-108 mph in a quarter mile track. Still blows my mind. I expected lower ET and greater MPH with the '70 W30 manual transmission cam.
I guess Oldsmobile Engineers knew and that's the reason they installed the automatic 442 cam in the automatic W30's.
I still don't understand the reason for the lack of performance.
So, you went from a 285/287 degree cam to a 328/328 degree cam that was designed to run with open headers. Your stock torque converter probably only flashed to about 2,000 RPM's. The W-30 SMT carb didn't use primary metering rods and used a #58 jet. Your car used #69 jets with a primary power piston. The torque of the 328 degrees cam comes in at a higher RPM. With that cam, you need at least a 3,500 stall converter. You needed to either use #59 jets and no primary metering rods OR a special low tension spring that would operate the primary power piston/metering rods in the vacuum range that the cam was capable of generating. The longer duration cams generate less vacuum to operate vacuum operated accessories, like power brakes, heater/defroster doors, etc. I am going to make an assumption you ran at night and nearer to sea level. The Oldsmobile engineers did in fact knew what they were doing. Was this any help to explaining ?
So, you went from a 285/287 degree cam to a 328/328 degree cam that was designed to run with open headers. Your stock torque converter probably only flashed to about 2,000 RPM's. The W-30 SMT carb didn't use primary metering rods and used a #58 jet. Your car used #69 jets with a primary power piston. The torque of the 328 degrees cam comes in at a higher RPM. With that cam, you need at least a 3,500 stall converter. You needed to either use #59 jets and no primary metering rods OR a special low tension spring that would operate the primary power piston/metering rods in the vacuum range that the cam was capable of generating. The longer duration cams generate less vacuum to operate vacuum operated accessories, like power brakes, heater/defroster doors, etc. I am going to make an assumption you ran at night and nearer to sea level. The Oldsmobile engineers did in fact knew what they were doing. Was this any help to explaining ?
Ralph,
On the day I ran the 328/328 cam it was Sunday. That day I will never forget. I also was running at ATCO, NJ. I have no idea whether or not the track was at, above or below sea level. I know that I had a friend with a manual transmission W30, closed factory exhaust, and we were both running similar ET's and MPH. The Jets I'll never know if there would have been a material difference. I do know that with the 328/328 cam, my car had no torque and no power. You're probably right that with a higher stall speed converter, my ET would have improved significantly. Olds only made one torque converter for the '70 OW transmissions. I was happy to see that day end. I also learned that Olds paid their engineers what they were paid for the specific issue raised here and not to modify the engineers factory equipment for a reason.
My car with the 328/328 cam sounded like a monster, but didn't perform. .
Thank you for helping me understand.
Joe, so the 68 H/O's with AC I think had the same AC OAI collision issue, but, being an converted car, I guess they rolled with it. Hose did look a little smushed on the one I looked it.
The heat riser adapter to the air cleaner snorkel was also sent to Demmer in the trunk, and hammered flat until it cleared the compressor. So it was a bit crude.
The heat riser adapter to the air cleaner snorkel was also sent to Demmer in the trunk, and hammered flat until it cleared the compressor. So it was a bit crude.
Thanks. I've got the OAI setup for my 67 which I want to hang on it. I think I will have to flatten the hose over the compressor, but at least they had no heat risers.
Joe, so the 68 H/O's with AC I think had the same AC OAI collision issue, but, being an converted car, I guess they rolled with it. Hose did look a little smushed on the one I looked it.
Correct. The 68 H/O was the only 66-69 O.A.I. car that ever came with A/C, and if you've ever looked at one closely, you can see why. It actually isn't the hose that's the problem, it's the hot air adapter under the passenger side snorkel. Demmer had to beat them to crap to get them to clear the rear bracket on the A/C compressor.
Of course, you couldn't get A/C on any other 1969 Olds A-body with O.A.I. The dealer-added A/C on the W-32 discussed in this thread would have the same problem, though the shape of the hot air adapter is different from 68 to 69. From this only photo of the 69, I can't tell if the adapter is even in place under the snorkel.
This may be the same car +- Real ? Who Knows - Some docs +-
Good Deal $1000.00
Does not say how old this listing is ...
2001 Olds Nationals; Best of Class 96 of 100 points awarded, Helen early award
2001 Dayton Olds Performance meet; 1st place 68 -72 convertible class
2001 Greater Cincinnati Olds show; 1st place 68 -72 performance class
Kettering Invitational Car Show; 2nd place in performance class
2002 Oldsmobile used this car at the North American International Auto show in Detroit See pics of postcard created by Oldsmobile
This car was previously owned by Lenny Kravitz in 2003 I am not sure how long he owned this car but have documentation of his ownership
It does look like the Kravitz car. He was a member of the MA Olds club. He didn't own it for very long. I hate to comment on these W 32 cars, like Joe says...I think I've seen more than they made.
I know that. Whenever I question the legitimacy of one of these cars, people always jump all over me. Like this car. People say, it was at a GM show and they made a postcard, so it's definitely real. Like another one on here I personally looked at that just happened to be missing the distributor, rear end, carb, and trans. After the fire, and w/o documentation, it's hard to say if it's real or not. People say, "Hey, it was on My Classic Car, so it has to be real". Somebody says, they have had that car forever, so it's real. Lenny vacations at the Vineyard or Nantucket, that's where our club Pres met him. But he really doesn't know about Olds.
1969 was the high water mark for Olds W-machines - more different performance models and super high production speaks for itself.
OK, I know I am going to get some heat for this, after all, the 70 and later cars had the 455 and the 70 W-30 was the 442 performance icon. But you, dear reader, are seeing the era through 21st Century eyes.
Yes, in raw numbers more "W" engined cars were built in 1970, but the water is muddied by the Cutlass SX 455 with the 442 engine option being called "W-32" in 1970, to differentiate it from the standard SX 4 bbl 455 (88 -98 Series Motor). In reality, 1968 was the high water mark for 442 Production with 34,122 built.
But though the total 1970 "W" car production exceeded 1969 by over one thousand, when judging "high water" it's not just production numbers, that count but also has available choices. In 1969, the performance buyer had four A-body "W" models to choose from: W-30, W-31, W-32, and W-45 (Hurst/Olds), and in 1969, they were real special option engines, developed for a specific purpose or market. AND when you are talking W-32, this was the only year that this engine was purpose-built rather than an order code to allow fitment in a different body.
To my mind, in 1969 Olds was really trying to grab more of the market by specializing on different high performance tastes. In fact, in 1969 no other brand or manufacturer offered as many high performance, big block engine options in one size car, not even Chevy (3), Ford (3), or Plymouth (4). And in all block sizes, Olds offered 5 different high-performance engine choices for the A-Body (442 base, W-31, W-32, W-30, and W-45). Consider that when you consider which year Olds hit their performance peak.
The 1969 W-32 Engine Option.
The seeds of the W-32 were sown in 1968, when Olds realized that the automatic 442 was a bit of a slug, but when you sell over 20 thousand automatic cars, you don't want to rock the boat too much. They also realized that the W-30 was a bit much with its 328 cam for the performance automatic guy. Too much cam for a low stall converter and power brakes and not much fun to drive on a daily basis.
What they were searching for with the W-32 was an engine combo that would pull like the 442 auto car but have the performance a small step above the stick 442, with the convenience of the automatic car.
Adding OAI, "select fit" blueprinting and the 4-speed cam seemed like a great idea. In fact, Olds engineering suggested using the 294/296 cam in the 1970 W-30 automatic as a "just the ticket" upgrade (likely from their dyno experience with the 1969 W-32 program).
The W-32 should have sold like hotcakes, but less than 300 were made. That seems to stem from the fact that Olds just didn't know how to advertise the option (see examples on the right). And they faced another, more serious issue, In the previous year, the W-30 cars had received the bad reputation of being more likely to blow up than to blow the doors off of anything. The only models kicking butt and taking names were the 455 engined Hurst/Olds and the 350 W-31. As a result, though 1969 was the second highest selling year for 442 after 1968, W-Car sales in the "G" block fell to almost 2/3rds of the previous year.
Regardless, the W-32 was a great idea, and if you've driven one, you will be surprised on the difference in response and mid-range power over a standard automatic trans equipped 442. It was really a "street" performance engine, truly taking advantage of the long stroke 400's torque band with better high-end punch - much more appropriate for an automatic transmission car.
Frankly, at low and mid-range rpms, the W-32 has the performance that was missing in the W-30, which was designed for the drags and didn't make HP until the rod bearings were ready to spin. When you drive a W-32, you really feel it wanting to pull from 3000 up to about 5500.
If it was so good, why wasn't it carried on? Well, a few things happened. One, the engine size was increased to 455 cubes and the automatic 442s all received a cam (285/287) that was quite a bit more than the 262/274issued with the 400 AMT cars of 1968-1969. With 365 HP and 500 ft. lbs. of torque, the engine was 15 HP and 60 ft. lbs. of torque stronger than the old W-32, standard, and the Automatic W-30 model had as strong a cam and 55 more cubes. There just wasn't any need to carry on the W-32 engine. In essence, the new block addressed the shortcomings in the old engine, reducing the need for another offering.
No, not fake, it;s been laminated, but I also have back, tear off copy of maroney as well as dealer invoice and shipping document.
Not fake, don't make comments about something you have no knowledge of.
It's fake. The font is wrong. The W30 option should read "Force-Air Induction System" Items listed as standard at the bottom, contain extra cost options, and therefore would not be listed there.
1) Not a W30, but W32, different option description.
2) Maroney shown prior is reprint of original, that is in pieces, see attached
Not sure what 'options' you refer to, please clarify
August 13th, 2019, 07:48 AM
