4-4-2 or 4-42?
September 5th, 2008, 04:32 AM
#41
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 17,617
September 5th, 2008, 04:40 PM
#42
is Fast Enough ...
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: dogtown
Posts: 1,308
What did 442 mean in 1991? I bet that was the best 442 of all!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_442
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_442
Originally Posted by wikapedia
W-30 option cars were equipped with Ram Air intake hoses leading from a chrome topped dual snorkle black air cleaner to special under bumper air scoops and set off by bright red plastic fender wells.
...
September 6th, 2008, 08:40 AM
#44
Oldsdruid
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southside Vajenya
Posts: 10,295
Good god. ANY N-body Calais has more style than these bloated jellybeans that pass for cars today. So that should tell anyone what I think of current car design.
There are cars that get some design elements right, only to totally blow it on another area on the same car. Nothing cohesive about them. Then there's all the copycatting going on, i.e. rear sailpanel area on Nissan products vis-a-vis Chevy/Buick midsize and some of Ford's lineup. And I am really tired of cars that are obviously based on Transformers toy figures.
GM, are you listening? I mean after all you DID promote the new Camaro in that stupid Transformers movie.
Chrysler pulled off that marketing ploy 100x better back in the 80s with "The Wraith", with much better designed cars. "Demolition Man" did it better too.
I wish I knew what was in the heads of the current crop of GM designers. I'm almost convinced their heads are empty, or at the least fried on some type of chemical stimulant.
And a Quad442 is actually a pretty impressive little machine, especially in W41 trim.
There are cars that get some design elements right, only to totally blow it on another area on the same car. Nothing cohesive about them. Then there's all the copycatting going on, i.e. rear sailpanel area on Nissan products vis-a-vis Chevy/Buick midsize and some of Ford's lineup. And I am really tired of cars that are obviously based on Transformers toy figures.
GM, are you listening? I mean after all you DID promote the new Camaro in that stupid Transformers movie.
Chrysler pulled off that marketing ploy 100x better back in the 80s with "The Wraith", with much better designed cars. "Demolition Man" did it better too.
I wish I knew what was in the heads of the current crop of GM designers. I'm almost convinced their heads are empty, or at the least fried on some type of chemical stimulant.
And a Quad442 is actually a pretty impressive little machine, especially in W41 trim.
September 6th, 2008, 01:39 PM
#45
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Overton NV
Posts: 1,728
Good god. ANY N-body Calais has more style than these bloated jellybeans that pass for cars today. So that should tell anyone what I think of current car design.
There are cars that get some design elements right, only to totally blow it on another area on the same car. Nothing cohesive about them. Then there's all the copycatting going on, i.e. rear sailpanel area on Nissan products vis-a-vis Chevy/Buick midsize and some of Ford's lineup. And I am really tired of cars that are obviously based on Transformers toy figures.
GM, are you listening? I mean after all you DID promote the new Camaro in that stupid Transformers movie.
Chrysler pulled off that marketing ploy 100x better back in the 80s with "The Wraith", with much better designed cars. "Demolition Man" did it better too.
I wish I knew what was in the heads of the current crop of GM designers. I'm almost convinced their heads are empty, or at the least fried on some type of chemical stimulant.
And a Quad442 is actually a pretty impressive little machine, especially in W41 trim.
There are cars that get some design elements right, only to totally blow it on another area on the same car. Nothing cohesive about them. Then there's all the copycatting going on, i.e. rear sailpanel area on Nissan products vis-a-vis Chevy/Buick midsize and some of Ford's lineup. And I am really tired of cars that are obviously based on Transformers toy figures.
GM, are you listening? I mean after all you DID promote the new Camaro in that stupid Transformers movie.
Chrysler pulled off that marketing ploy 100x better back in the 80s with "The Wraith", with much better designed cars. "Demolition Man" did it better too.
I wish I knew what was in the heads of the current crop of GM designers. I'm almost convinced their heads are empty, or at the least fried on some type of chemical stimulant.
And a Quad442 is actually a pretty impressive little machine, especially in W41 trim.
Last edited by csstrux; September 6th, 2008 at 01:50 PM.
September 6th, 2008, 02:19 PM
#46
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 17,617
What he said. Though being a rwd kind of guy, I'm still not excited about too many fwd cars of any make. Just my little bitch. Was waiting for Chevy to bring the commodore over to be the next impala ss. To bad they made it a Pontiac. Gooked up plasticed out watered down copy of the original. can't even get a manual in the states. WTF do these guys think that we lose our appreciation of performance when we have kids?! Any way needed to get that out. Next car will probably be a late 70's a body wagon, another cutlass cruiser would be nice. maybe a nice bbo th400 combo. The last two were sbc.
I don't even know the year or model [cause it isn't a 69
] But it's has been sitting next to a friend of mine's garage for years. [ being used for storage
]I believe it has Naval Flags as a logo. Not being a Navy guy I have no idea what letters the flags are. I'll check it out next week and report back for the sake of discussion.
September 6th, 2008, 03:26 PM
#48
442=A perfect 10
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 152
Good god. ANY N-body Calais has more style than these bloated jellybeans that pass for cars today. So that should tell anyone what I think of current car design.
There are cars that get some design elements right, only to totally blow it on another area on the same car. Nothing cohesive about them. Then there's all the copycatting going on, i.e. rear sailpanel area on Nissan products vis-a-vis Chevy/Buick midsize and some of Ford's lineup. And I am really tired of cars that are obviously based on Transformers toy figures.
GM, are you listening? I mean after all you DID promote the new Camaro in that stupid Transformers movie.
Chrysler pulled off that marketing ploy 100x better back in the 80s with "The Wraith", with much better designed cars. "Demolition Man" did it better too.
I wish I knew what was in the heads of the current crop of GM designers. I'm almost convinced their heads are empty, or at the least fried on some type of chemical stimulant.
And a Quad442 is actually a pretty impressive little machine, especially in W41 trim.
There are cars that get some design elements right, only to totally blow it on another area on the same car. Nothing cohesive about them. Then there's all the copycatting going on, i.e. rear sailpanel area on Nissan products vis-a-vis Chevy/Buick midsize and some of Ford's lineup. And I am really tired of cars that are obviously based on Transformers toy figures.
GM, are you listening? I mean after all you DID promote the new Camaro in that stupid Transformers movie.
Chrysler pulled off that marketing ploy 100x better back in the 80s with "The Wraith", with much better designed cars. "Demolition Man" did it better too.
I wish I knew what was in the heads of the current crop of GM designers. I'm almost convinced their heads are empty, or at the least fried on some type of chemical stimulant.
And a Quad442 is actually a pretty impressive little machine, especially in W41 trim.
You are pretty much correct with your statement (red). Taking over two years to get the Camaro to market after parading it around with the Hoopla that they used. Chrysler simply copied the basic body style (Challenger) and got it to market quicker. The Volt....where is it? GM has had EXTENSIVE experience with electric vehicles. Remember the Saturn EV1 that no owner wanted to give up when it was time to turn in (lease).
Big Oil intertwined with GM,Ford is killing the competiveness of our home companies. Sorry for the rant but it is frustrating.
Back to thread: I agree the W41 Calais were potent. I had a 1990 I-Series sedan with five speed and all W-41 goodies and it was FAST!
Regards,
Fred
September 19th, 2008, 08:09 AM
#49
Trying to remember member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,112
I can't believe what 442 means is still debated, *especially* in the Oldmobile community.
It is really pretty simple:
1. In 1964, it debuted as "Four Bbl, 4-speed, 2 (dual) exhaust"
2. In '65 (that included a 3-sp manual and a 2-spd automatic) it was announced as "400 cid, 4-bbl, 2 (dual) exhaust"
That's it, that's all. Oldmobile never defined it after that. So knock yourself out, and call it whatever you want. 1965 was the last that Oldsmobile called it anything!
It is really pretty simple:
1. In 1964, it debuted as "Four Bbl, 4-speed, 2 (dual) exhaust"
2. In '65 (that included a 3-sp manual and a 2-spd automatic) it was announced as "400 cid, 4-bbl, 2 (dual) exhaust"
That's it, that's all. Oldmobile never defined it after that. So knock yourself out, and call it whatever you want. 1965 was the last that Oldsmobile called it anything!
September 19th, 2008, 10:25 AM
#50
Past Administrator
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rural Waxahachie Texas
Posts: 10,010
I've got my eye on a baby Cutty Wagon, [baby compared to a 69 Vista]
I don't even know the year or model [cause it isn't a 69]
But it's has been sitting next to a friend of mine's garage for years. [ being used for storage]I believe it has Naval Flags as a logo. Not being a Navy guy I have no idea what letters the flags are. I'll check it out next week and report back for the sake of discussion.
I don't even know the year or model [cause it isn't a 69
] But it's has been sitting next to a friend of mine's garage for years. [ being used for storage
]I believe it has Naval Flags as a logo. Not being a Navy guy I have no idea what letters the flags are. I'll check it out next week and report back for the sake of discussion.
September 14th, 2009, 09:33 PM
#53
Seasoned beater pilot.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,468
I can't believe what 442 means is still debated, *especially* in the Oldmobile community.
It is really pretty simple:
1. In 1964, it debuted as "Four Bbl, 4-speed, 2 (dual) exhaust"
2. In '65 (that included a 3-sp manual and a 2-spd automatic) it was announced as "400 cid, 4-bbl, 2 (dual) exhaust"
That's it, that's all. Oldmobile never defined it after that. So knock yourself out, and call it whatever you want. 1965 was the last that Oldsmobile called it anything!
It is really pretty simple:
1. In 1964, it debuted as "Four Bbl, 4-speed, 2 (dual) exhaust"
2. In '65 (that included a 3-sp manual and a 2-spd automatic) it was announced as "400 cid, 4-bbl, 2 (dual) exhaust"
That's it, that's all. Oldmobile never defined it after that. So knock yourself out, and call it whatever you want. 1965 was the last that Oldsmobile called it anything!
4 tires, 4 brain cells, 2stupid of a moniker.
Pontiac 2+2 should have just been called the Pontiac 4. dee dee deeeeee
Last edited by J-(Chicago); September 14th, 2009 at 09:36 PM.
September 15th, 2009, 02:29 AM
#54
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Brazil Indiana
Posts: 11,503
. if you have not drove one you need to try and get a W-41 owner to let you drive one. they are among the top of the list for me as one one of the funnest cars i have ever had. but yes, they were 4 cylinder 4 valves per cylinder and 2 overhead cams.
September 15th, 2009, 05:22 PM
#55
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,620
Marty Schorr has a new book out on Motion Performance, and there's a chapter about the Markowitz partnership.
http://www.amazon.com/Motion-Perform...3060524&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Motion-Perform...3060524&sr=8-1
September 16th, 2009, 06:30 PM
#56
Trying to remember member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,112
Well, that's not correct either, I'm afraid.
For 1964 it was 4 speed, 4bbl, dual exh
For 1965 it was 400 engine, 4bbl, dual exh
For 1966 it was meaningless, since you could get a 3x2 bbl that year, or a 2bbl starting in 1968, or a 455 starting in 1970, or a 350 2bbl starting in 1972...
For 1964 it was 4 speed, 4bbl, dual exh
For 1965 it was 400 engine, 4bbl, dual exh
For 1966 it was meaningless, since you could get a 3x2 bbl that year, or a 2bbl starting in 1968, or a 455 starting in 1970, or a 350 2bbl starting in 1972...
September 16th, 2009, 06:53 PM
#57
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Brazil Indiana
Posts: 11,503
where did the 90 & 91 quad 442 definition come from then? i am trying to find the publication that i read it in. i know i have it just have not found it yet. maybe it is not an Oldsmobile publication but i sure thought it was. i will continue to look for it.
September 17th, 2009, 05:22 AM
#59
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 338
400 ci,
4-barrel carb,
dual exhaust!!!
or, in '64:
4-bbl carb,
4-speed stick
dual exhaust!
OOOPPSS!!!
Didn't see wmachine & Joe's posts before I added mine!
Ralph
Last edited by German442; September 17th, 2009 at 05:26 AM. Reason: additions
