If I remember correctly, I think someone on this forum said that the 68s are less desirable than the later model 442s. Is that correct, and if so, why?

 

Whoever said that was laboring under an extreme misapprehension.

'68s and '69s sometimes get a bad rap because of the 400 G-block engines they were equipped with. These engines weren't exactly the hot ticket for racing because of an undersquare design incorporating a very long stroke which inhibited their ability to rev. The other side of the coin, however, is that they produced ungodly amounts of low RPM torque, which is a very useful thing to have on the street.

Bottom line is that there's no need to shy away from a '68 or '69 if you find a nice one that you like. If the legacy of the G-block disturbs you, rest assured that many, if not most, of these cars have had their original 400s swapped out in favor of 455s by now.

 

If you equate value to desireability, then yes, that is true.


A comparable 70-72 442 will outsell a 68-69 442 any day of the week

 

It seems the 68's and 69's have been getting a lot of love lately.

 

I agree. I think some of this is because the 70-72 market prices are so high that it is pushing people to the more affordable 68-69 cars. Quality body parts are much harder to come by for 68 and 69 though.

 

I guess that's my question: why are the 70-72 442s more expensive (that is, more desirable) than the 68-69s? I have a one owner Saffron Yellow '68 convertible that my best friend gave me, and he bought it new on an order from a dealer in the KC area. I'm never going to sell it, so value or price don't matter to me, but I'm curious as to why the 70-72s have a perception of being more valuable.

 

The G-block doesn't kill a 68-9 car's desirability, but you have to be aware of its limitations. 68 is also kind of a transition year- it shares the basic 68-72 body shell and underpinnings, but there are numerous 68-only things (ignition switch, vent windows for a couple) that make owning a 68 a little more challenging.


I still like the 1968 A-body styling best of the 68-72 cars, and that goes for Chevelle, Tempest/GTO and Skylark as well. Couldn't stand the 68 Skylark when they came out, but that rakish design has grown on me a lot.

 

70 was arguably the pinnacle of the Muscle Car era. The market value for these cars isn't really driven by the Oldsmobile purists it's driven by people with money who are more investors than collectors

 

personally i think the 68s are the best looking of all the 68-72 442s,there is no accounting for taste.some people like to follow the herd. i've owned a few 68 442s and if i was looking for another of the 68-72 vintage it would be a 68.jmo

 

I kinda have a different opinion, perhaps cuz I'm not an Olds guy.

I don't think the '68-69s suffer in styling compared to other GM vehicles, but it's clearly the engine that holds it back. The 455 was undersquare too, right? Yet it didn't suffer from the same compromises that the 400 did. Meanwhile, the '65-67 400 is quite a nice engine - the '68-69 400 was not an improvement. One member here told me his local dealership campaigned a '69 W-31 because their '68 W-30 was such a dog.

Look at other medium-blocks from the era, like Chevy's 396 and both Pontiac and Buick's 400, and you will never see them complaining. And why the hell did Olds downgrade the 400/auto to 325 horsepower? It's not like the 400/350 had such a radical cam that it wasn't easy to drive daily.

From my non-mechanical Brand X eyes, Olds dropped the ball at the worst moment - thank God for the Hurst/Olds or the 4-4-2's reputation would have been hurt badly.

As for "some people like to follow the herd," there's some irony here considering the 1968 4-4-2 was the best-selling one of the bunch.

 

If you look at some road tests from back in the day, you can see that the 400G was the equal of any of the other divisions' medium-block engines as delivered by the factory. Quarter mile times for GM's four mid-size muscle entries were all within 4/10s of each other, with the Olds coming in at 15.13 @ 92 mph as opposed to, say the Chevelle SS 396/325 hp's 15.4 @ 92. Moreover, the base version of the legendary Chevy 396 made 325 hp @ 4800 RPM and a measly 410 lb-ft of torque @ 3200. Compare that with the base (automatic) G-motor: same 325 hp, but at 4600 RPM and a whopping 440 lb-ft of torque @ 3200. Plus, if you ordered the stick you got a free 25 horse bonus that Chevrolet charged $105 for! On the street, right off the showroom floor, this was a clear win.

Where the G fell down was in terms of potential. A 396 could easily be built to make big power at engine speeds over 6500 RPM, whereas the Olds 400 was flirting with disaster anywhere above 5500, so many of the standard horsepower-generating tricks of the day were of little value on the Olds.

 

Not mine

 

I wouldn't say the 4-4-2 was 3- or 4-tenths quicker than the 396/325. And I think the Olds' time was prob quite generous.

The point is that Olds didn't improve its 400, and the market reflects this. Doesn't bother me one bit, but would be nice to see one of these cars taken to Pure Stock and see what they can do - after all, Cars magazine named the 1968 "Performance Car of the Year."

 

Nor mine.

 

Or mine.

 

I think its because of the W-29 hood.

 

one of mine has an original 425 4bbl
the other's engine is a 455 on a stand, built on a D425 block....

Though I have a G400 around

 

I wouldn't say it either. Motor Trend did. And John Beltz wasn't the one who was famous for supplying ringers to the press; that was more of a Wangers/Delorean kind of a deal.


I will certainly agree, however, that Olds did little in the way of performance development on the G-block. They were probably able to see that the future lay with the 455. And that PCOTY award from Cars was probably either ad agency graft or a joke.

 

... prominently displayed on a stand in your living room like the museum piece that it is, no doubt.

 

The 70 - 72 OAI hood is one of the best looking hoods ever IMO. 68 and 69 W cars had a cool system too, however you can't see it from the drivers seat. Just driving an OAI car with those scoops in front of you is an experience everyone should have at least once in a lifetime. ~BOB

 

By saying "I wouldn't say," you know that suggests that MT's times don't reflect the relative performance differences of the two engines.

Aside of the '64 Royal Bobcat, could you tell me what other ringers Pontiac supplied?

 

in my area..68s are more sought after than 69s...its a personal taste thing..

growing up it was always the same..people perused 68s way harder than 69s...and neither was as popular as 70-72...in all cases it was an aesthetic choice..i dont remember anyone ever saying a 68 or 69 was slow or under powered etc...all i knew, thought the 68 was cleaner and thats why they bought them...69s where ugly ducklings around my area...i didnt think so, but most everyone else did.

 

Look up Car & Driver GTO vs. GTO sometime (or I'll save you the trouble: Wangers slipped them a 421). Then the next year he gave them a 421 Catalina that Milt Schornak worked over so it defied the laws of physics. I haven't read it, but evidently Wangers spilled his guts about these events and more in a pretty interesting autobiography.

 

Is that not the article I referenced?

You haven't read it, so I will save you the trouble:

It wasn't a ringer.

 

I certainly read the road test. I just haven't read Wangers's book.

0-60 in 3.9 isn't a ringer? I sincerely doubt any full-sized car made in the 1960's by any of the Big 3 ever ran that fast off the showroom floor.

From an article entitled, "Car and Driver Tested: The 12 Quickest Cars of the 1960s" -- "Technical Director Don Sherman remembers Pontiac as being the most egregious of offenders who supplied us with ringers. Thanks, Jim Wangers!"

 

The use of a manual watch to time a car does not a ringer make. The car's modifications by Royal were fully disclosed, leading to an appropriate 13.8 ET.

 

There was a big model change in 68. First year model change cars rarely are as collectible as their predecessors. The 58 Olds, the 68 Olds, and the 73 Olds are not as popular as the 57, 67, and 72. Works for Corvettes and other GM cars.

Was the E 400 block better than the G? I think so. Does it really matter? Probably not. Is the 68 a little odd aesthetically? Perhaps, I don't like the dash or the taillights, but it really doesn't matter either. Most valuable 442s are 70s and 64s.

I don't know how high you can wind a E block 400 in stock form, or a G....or a F 455 for that matter.

 

IF you think 13.8 is appropriate for a 376 hp engine in a 4300 lb. car.

Anyway, I defer to your greater wisdom rather than derail another thread with arcane arguments.

Back to our regular programming: The '68 4-4-2 is a great car, not to be shunned for its G-block or unique (but handsome) styling. Also, it's nice because you don't see nearly as many of them around as you do '70s. You'll probably be the only guy with one at every cruise night you go to. I had one and loved it. If you can find a good one, you should buy it.

 

I'll add my $.02 to this - by me, '70 is the most describable year, followed by '71. I think this is because of the styling & the opinion that '70 was the pinnacle year. After that, I think '72 & '69 are a toss up. '72 styling being held higher but '69 being a better performer. IMO (and this is regional) '68 is the least desirable with the styling being considered a transitional year. Again, this is my opinion on my local market. This is probably held true across the other A-Bodies as well.


As far as performance, my '70 Cutlass ended up with a G-Block 400. fairly mild with a stock cam profile, headers and an aluminum intake. When I changed the rear from a 2.73 to a 3.23 the car was an absolute blast to drive. Wouldn't rev but gobs of low end torque & would smoke the tires at will. If you don't have a drag strip to go to what more do you want?
That being said, the engine is a compromise. I've read that the 400G was built with the specs its got so it could share a crank with the 455. Makes sense. They were only building the 400 for one model.

 

In a Bobcatted car? Absolutely.

Anyway, surprised to see the '72 held in such high esteem style-wise. I know some prefer '71 over '70, and I can see that - they're both worthy - but the '72 has its fans over the '71?

To me, '69 and '70 are very similar up front, with only the body being different. I actually like the '69 a lot, and I prefer the side trim and OAI. Never liked the taillights. I prefer the '68's taillights and the rotary switches for the dashboard. The '70 dash sucks.

 

I don't like the '68-9 dash, but there you go. I actually find the flared and sculptured quarters on the '68-9 cars much more attractive than the more squared-off look of the '70-'72 . Agree that I don't really get the big deal about the '72, but that's what makes horse racing. Also, I like the '69 taillights best of all. Now you're gonna say I'm just being difficult!

 

You're being as difficult as me. :-)

 

is this specific to convertibles?

 

Oh. My. Gawd. Diego and I agree about something!


I actually like the 69 A-body lineup least of them all. There wasn't enough difference in the Pontiac/Buick versions from 68 to 69 to make much fuss, but I always found the 69 Chevelle grille and tail especially heinous- which is strange because I always thought the 69 Chevy big car was one of their best. To me the 69 Cutlass styling bordered on "ordinary" after the highly styled 68.


But, airboddy like sumpin' different, is what makes this hobby fun.

 

I wasn't aware we don't agree on things.

Anyway, I too am not a fan of the '69 Chevelle. I think the '68 is so much cleaner, but I'd take a Beaumont over any of 'em.

 

I have had my '68 since 1987 and have never had the intake or heads off.
Factory installed and not a single leak.
This engine is the most reliable I've ever had.
With over 150,000 miles the compression is high across all cylinders.
Pulls strong and I expect many more years of enjoyment.

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder! The 68-69 with the bright work over the fenders, door etc. and the rocket side marker on the quarters, are excellent touches IMO.

70-72 Instrument cluster has better eye appeal. 70-72 Supermes were a different body style, easier to differentiate again IMO.

Heck I would be proud to own most any Oldsmobile no matter what. OK maybe not so much on 1978-79 Cutlass Salon.

Pat

 

Absolutely not!