EngineErnie

Is there a good comprehensive list out there that shows all 1968 to 72 engine specs with horsepower? Including the W cars and all 442 based on manual vs automatic and options?

joe_padavano

The powertrains page of the Salesman's SPECS manual has a detailed listing of HP and torque for each engine in the line, but understand that this is ADVERTISED horsepower and has been proven time and again to have no relationship to reality whatsoever. Also understand that 1970 and earlier numbers were SAE Gross. In 1971 automakers switched to rating in SAE Net, though for 1971 Olds published both numbers.

I've regularly pointed out the fallacy of the factory HP numbers. Consider that the MT W-30 motor with the 328 deg cam and enough overlap that Olds cooked up a special Qjet without primary metering rods was rated at the same 370 HP as the AT W-30 that used the 285/287 degree cam from the regular AT 442 motor. And if the Toro W-34 really made 400 HP, why would Olds spend all the development money on F heads and an aluminum intake to only make 370 HP in the W-30? Frankly, I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over factory HP numbers.

Run to Rund

The Illustrations manual, a companion to the parts manuals, showed HP curves, but see Joe's cautionary statements above.

therobski

X2 on Joe and Run to Rund... for another reference check out: http://www.442.com/oldsfaq/ofe455.htm

joe_padavano

Since I'm on a roll...

Here's another example of the fallacy of the factory HP numbers. The 1970 442 AT engine was rated at 365 HP. The 1970 Toro W-34 motor used the exact same "E" heads with the same valves, the same block, the same pistons, and the same 285/287 degree cam. By changing to the crappy Toro intake and exhaust manifolds, this engine was now rated at 400 HP.

Does ANYONE really believe that?

Here's my theory. The GM limit of 10 lbs per HP on the A-body cars was well documented. The 1970 442 had a curb weight right around 3700 lbs. Magically, the W-30 was rated at 370 HP (do the math). The lesser 442s naturally had to have a lower HP number than the W-30, thus the 365 rating.

I've noted previously that automotive writer Roger Huntington famously wrote an article in the early 1970s comparing the advertised and actual HP numbers of selected musclecar engines. The 1970 W-30 MT motor put out an actual 440 HP vs. the 370 HP advertised in that article.

Troys Toy 70

A couple of questions:

Joe do you have a copy/ link to said article?
I know I have seen some of these before, but I am not sure if I have read that one.

Also, here is some math that has always bugged me. Most articles at the time have the W30 between 14.10 and 14.25 sec in the 1/4. The LS6, GSX, RamAir IV usually in the 13s. I know the LS6 is suppose to turn 6500, which would certainly help the top end. What about the power/ torquecurves? Is it the Olds head design that produces power sooner, and the others later that give them the 13 mark? Again stock at the time comparisons.

joe_padavano

Troy,

I haven't seen the article since the 1980s, but here's the list reproduced in a thread. As for quarter mile times, I do know that Car Craft tested a 1970 W-30 in Nov 1969 and went 13.88 @ 95.84. Hot Rod did a test of the W-30 and W-31 together and they went 13.98 @ 100.78 mph in an AT W-30. These were on the stock bias ply tires, so launch technique was important.

Stefano

[QUOTE=joe_padavano;976991]Since I'm on a roll...

"Here's another example of the fallacy of the factory HP numbers. The 1970 442 AT engine was rated at 365 HP. The 1970 Toro W-34 motor used the exact same "E" heads with the same valves, the same block, the same pistons, and the same 285/287 degree cam. By changing to the crappy Toro intake and exhaust manifolds, this engine was now rated at 400 HP.

Does ANYONE really believe that?"

Yes, I do believe that the HP and TQ factory ratings for the TOROs were accurate as there was less to worry about. Other than what you stated by 1970 many insurance companies were on to the game and thus the high profile....Youngsmobiles could not feature an accurate HP rating...........buy a Toronado with 400hp, no problem.

joe_padavano

These HP shenanigans were going on long before the insurance crackdown. It was easy for Olds to hide this in prior years because the A-body cars only got a 400, not the same 455 as the big cars. The short-stroke 400 motors were underrated, considering that they had the same HP and torque ratings as the G-block, yet the long stroke motor didn't perform nearly as well.

Bigmikey65

JP I know that you are a very smart man. I am reading these posts in search of an answer or theory. Can anyone guesstimate the SAE NET and the SAE GROSS for the 1970 W30 m/t and a/t engines ? Seems to me that in this day and age cars have gotten heavier - not lighter. And with crate motors and super computers is it possible to compare 2020 engineering with 1970’s brute force ?

Diego

There is no reason to guess:

https://www.hotrod.com/articles/hors...r-1960s-1970s/

joe_padavano

The problem I have with those numbers are the AT 442 w/W25 vs AT W-30. 297 vs 306 net, yet both have exactly the same cam, carb, jetting, and O.A.I. the only difference is distributor advance curve, piston clearances, and aluminum vs iron intake (which are otherwise the same except for material). Do those items net a 9 HP difference? Seems like a lot.

Koda

I stopped reading at "dunno"

Diego

Funny, I stopped at “stopped.”

Koda

I don't care if you don't read my posts. In fact, I'd prefer it.

Tri-Carb

When comparing engines, I see people generally referencing peak engine horsepower and torque numbers. This can be misleading for several reasons. First, the rpms used by the factory to select the numbers may intentionally have not been at the optimum points. Second, for marketing reasons the factory may have intentionally misstated the true horsepower/torque numbers at the rpms actually selected. Third, it is the integral of the areas defined by the horsepower/torque curves over the rpm range, as opposed to peak numbers, that determine relative performance.

Diego

You should try to post things that are substantive so they're worth reading.

Koda

You, too.

Diego

That’s a very creative response, but lemme let you in on a little secret:

When you have nothing good to say, it’s best to STFU. The number of Oldsmobile enthusiasts are few, and when someone comes on this site to ask questions, they are often chased away by the mob. It’s no different when they see someone doing their best to be an *******—they will simply think, “Is this worth my time? I’ll go to Facebook instead and ask someone with grace.”

Half the knowledgeable people here have died, and the other half simply don’t bother with CO because there’s always a needless shot show. Joe should be commended for tolerating it all.

BangScreech4-4-2

Is that what we call this?

Koda

Don't start none; won't be none. I remember your antics from realoldspower; you agitated then; you agitate now. Only the most arrogant *** links his own article as a source.

Diego

.....or maybe it happened like this:

A very generous Olds collector allowed me to see factory engineering paperwork that showed numerous dyno tests, and I used it to write about horsepower ratings during the muscle car era.

You can appreciate the opportunity to learn about what Olds engineers were saying about your favorite engine. Or you can ignore it--makes no difference to me.

But generally haters are people who are not happy in their lives. If there's a way for me to brighten your day, and original engineering dyno info ain't it, then tell me how.

69CSHC

And How !

I cant think of a better example than looking at both a original muscle era Challenger and a modern muscle Challenger. The latter is obviously an exact but modern take on the other. Whatever body differences there are were probably necessitated for implementing mechanical, safety, and subtle modern design cues. ( too bad Olds and the 442, etc, didn't last long enough to see a renaissance).



Now lets cut to the chase.

1970 Dodge Challenger R/T 440 V-8 Six-Pack TorqueFlite (aut. 3) (SE)

curb weight 3571 LBS

2020 Dodge Challenger R/T Scat Pack automatic (aut. 8)

curb weight 4242 LBS

https://www.automobile-catalog.com/

Approaching 700 LBS more, ladies and gents, for a modern take on the same car 50 years later.

P.S. as far as why, when, how, to compare performance then and now goes. Modern technology has made it so that the added weight is rendered irrelevant.... Would like to expound on this subject and share thoughts and opinions with others in a new thread that I will dedicate to this.

matt69olds

At the same time, yesterday Challenger didn’t come with air conditioning, cruise control, power door locks,, power windows, or any of the other conveniences that today’s car shopper can’t or won’t do without. So it’s not exactly a apples to apples comparison. Either way, I’d love either car

Diego

The old Challenger was available with AC, cruise control, PW, and a number of other conveniences you'd expect on a luxury car.

But I believe it's not an apples to apples comparison because the old Challenger was a pony car, while today's Challenger is simply a 2-door version of the full-size Charger.

Koda

Bud, it's like this. You can get all the niche info you want, and you can share it or hoard it all you want; it isn't going to change who you are and how you've treated people over the years. People remember things that are said to them; I'm sure I've annoyed my fair share of folks here and other places, and I know not to call people who don't particularly care for me haters, because I know I may have earned their enmity.

There's always that guy who has all the money, or all the rare parts, or the nicest old car that thinks, just because he has all that stuff, he gets to talk down to people. What's worse is the guy that doesn't have that stuff, but really wants to talk down to people, so he works at getting the goods that will let him do so, instead of working on his character so he doesn't need to do it in the first place.

I'm glad you have that dyno info, but I would rather you not tell it to me so you can spare me telling me what I need to appreciate, or calling me a hater, or letting me in on a little secret, or telling me it's best to shut the **** up, or telling me I am apparently doing my best to be an *******, or telling me I don't post anything substantive (and that's all in this thread.)

If you really want to brighten my day, simply respond with "I understand" or something similar, and don't bother me again, and I'll do the same.

BangScreech4-4-2

Actually, it might be more apples-to-apples than you think. The original Challenger was based on a shortened B (or Charger) platform while the 1970 Barracuda was based on the same A platform as its Valliant predecessor, even though both were referred to as E-bodies.

Diego

Someone needs a hug.

Diego

Both the Challenger and Barracuda were E-bodies, which was a modified B-body platform, I believe. Nonetheless, the E-bodies were compacts and not mid-size vehicles. A Coronet would be a better comparison with the new-Challenger.

BangScreech4-4-2

No, as I stated, in 1970 those cars originated from two different platforms -- the Challenger from the B (or sure, Coronet) body and the Barracuda from the A (or Valiant) body. The 'Cuda actually had a shorter wheelbase (108") than the Challenger (110") but they're both E-bodies. I know, crazy, right? But you could look it up.

So the new(er) Challenger, at least philosophically speaking, didn't differ all that much from its forbear.

hurst68olds

not sure where this thread went off track, but .....

for 1970: Mopar's E-body "PONY CAR" platform Plymouth Barracuda & Dodge Challenger are a shortened (1971 model year) 2-door B-body "INTERMEDIATE" platform
***** the E-body shares nothing with the 1970 A-body "COMPACT" platform, but B & E-bodies share the entire "doghouse & front frame rails"

Dodge VS. Plymouth have different wheelbases on most of their A VS. A & B VS. B & C VS. C & E VS. E platforms (with the Plymouths being shorter, corporate hierarchy & all)

the 1969 Barracuda was the last of the Valiant based A-body "PONY CAR"
the 1971 B-bodies were originally slated to be the 1970 models, available monies delayed them until '71 model year & the '69 B-bodies got a facelift for 1970

BangScreech4-4-2

Apologies. It appears that I misread an article many years ago that explained the different wheelbases of the Challenger and 'Cuda and have been laboring under a misapprehension ever since. Both vehicles were indeed based on shortened B-bodies, the Challenger on the 117-inch Charger/Coronet wheelbase with 7 inches removed leaving a 110 inch span and the Barracuda on the Belvedere's 116-inch wheelbase with 8 inches removed leaving 108 inches.

However, if the new Challenger is in fact a cut-down of the Charger so was the old one, which really was my original point before I went off on this unfortunate tangent.

hurst68olds

when Daimler acquired Chrysler Corp. their first new model was the 2005 Chrysler 300 based on a '90s Mercedes ES350 chassis
this lead to the Dodge Charger & Magnum and eventually to the shortened same platform Challenger, still in production modified & tweaked but still ES350 based architecture 17-years (4 parent companies) & counting

69CSHC

Good point, and the weight specs I provided are base curb. What do you guys figure a fully loaded version would be ? Assuming it was even possible with such a powerful engine in 1970. + 200 lbs give or take ?

Obviously modern base curb is way different than base curb circa 1970. Today's cars in some ways are always loaded...

I agree I wouldn't mind owning either one, but I'm partial to the old school streamline vs modern bulk.

Diego

The measurements are towards the end of the documents:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?...39015071674942

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?...39015071674991

BangScreech4-4-2

Appreciate the effort, but when I click on the links, I am just told "This item is unavailable on the internet." Can you elaborate?

Diego

It works for me, so try this:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?...view=1up&seq=1

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?...view=1up&seq=1

matt69olds

The old Challenger was available with A/C, cruise, etc, but not with the 6barrel engine.

Diego

AC also was not available with 440-4 and a 4-speed and, of course, the Hemi.

matt69olds

I figure A/C or cruise control with the Hemi wasn’t available, or the 6 barrel engine. With the multiple carburetors I’m guessing cruise control would be a nightmare to make functional. With the Hemi, the huge valve covers would make A/C compressor mounting a packaging hassle. I thought you could get those options with the base 440 engine? I’m not a Mopar guru, although I do love the looks of the old (and new) Challengers, and of course the Charger.