Diego

Which one was more powerful?

We know the H/O was rated at 390 hp. The 1970 442 W30 was rated at 20 hp less, but was not 20 horses less powerful than the H/O.

Which do you truly think was more powerful?

Koda

Question should be refined a little. 68 H/O with or without AC? Automatic or stick W-30? Horsepower peak, or torque peak, or 1/4 mile ET? This is such a wide open question I think you're either going for the big reveal of your next batch of super secret information or doing a poll for a new book.

joe_padavano

More powerful, or quicker?

Just talking about flywheel HP, I'm pretty sure that a 455 with the 328/328 cam makes more power than a 455 with the 308/308 cam makes more power than a 455 with the 285/287 cam.

Diego

The 1969 H/O was basically tuned like the 1968 with AC, which was reflected with the hp drop on paper. Do you agree?

So that's why I chose the '68, plus it tested faster in the buff books.

But the '70 W30 seems to be the Big Kahuna for some. More powerful than the '68 H/O? That's where I'm interested in hearing from those in-the-know.

Sorry, you think wrong.

83hurstguy

I don't agree that a bigger cam = more power when the engines are equipped with exhaust manifolds.

The '68 H/O came with log-style exhaust manifolds, as the W/Z's didn't come out until '69. That's a 10 HP difference. The 328 cam works much better with headers, not only does it have more duration but the LSA is narrower.

IMO, it's a wash on power. The overcammed '70 engine has better exhaust manifolds, the '68 engine has a better cam but worse exhaust manifolds. We don't have any proof that the '68 H/O engines were "blueprinted" or treated special, they were just 88/98 shortblocks assembled with other W30/31 parts laying around (and virtually none of the non-A/C engines survived). As a whole package, I'll take the '68, it's a lighter car.

OLDSter Ralph

1. The 1969 H/O was similar to the 1968 H/O, "basically tuned" what way ? You do realize that you are only speaking of the 1969 H/O and W-46 1968 H/O ?
2. Have you considered the W-45 1968 H/O ?
3. What "paper" are you referring to ?
4. Who is "in the know" ?

wr1970

Good thread can't wait to see the verdict. I will go with the 68 because I know nothing.

OLDSter Ralph

Would you agree that a bigger cam equals more power with headers ?
You do know that the 328 degree cam was developed by Olds engineers using a dyno and open exhaust (headers) ?
The 308/308 cam is a very fine cam. The 308/308 cam is more manageable on the street with a lower stall convertor than the 328/328 requires. The 285/287 cam is a good cam for heavier cars and with A/C.
The W-45 (non A/C 1968) didn't survive 50 years because they were driven hard and raced. I doubt the A/C W-46 cars are any better. You should admit, that only 515 units were produced with A/C and non A/C. They were sold to the public and driven.
The 68 H/O is lighter and could gain some advantage there. But traction is elusive for both of them.

69 Hurst

I have to go with the H/O for obvious reasons!!

OLDSter Ralph

I am undecided at this point because I have owned both of them brand new.

matt69olds

The 68 Hurst Olds is my dream car, I’ll probably never be lucky enough to ever own one.

Personally, I would THINK all things being equal the 68 might be just a bit quicker. I base this guestimate on the assumption that the 328 cam was designed to optimize open header performance. Supposedly, the 68 is a better “street” performer.

And as far as all things being equal, I’m guessing test conditions, driver skill, tuning abilities, would be a huge influence on performance. Good luck finding stock cars to test. After 50 plus years, who knows what has been modified.

If anyone in readerland would like to offer their cars to test, I’m sure there would be no lack of willing test drivers!!

Diego

Which is why I singled out the '68, as the ones without AC were unfettered.

What Oldsmobile published.

Anyone coming from a position of knowledge.

OLDSter Ralph

Originally Posted by OLDSter Ralph View Post
Quote:
3. What "paper" are you referring to ?
What Oldsmobile published.
And what "paper" did Oldsmobile publish that you are referring to ?

Quote:
4. Who is "in the know" ?
Anyone coming from a position of knowledge.
And what qualifications are required ? Who determines they meet the qualifications ?

Diego

If I was on Family Feud, I'd give these as my Top 3 answers of what I mean by "paper":
-- In brochures
-- In road tests
-- In AMA specifications

If you think your opinion is a good one, by all means please give your feedback.

joe_padavano

Keep in mind that Olds published brochures that claimed that the 1970 W-30 with AT and the 285/287 cam made the same HP and torque as the W-30 MT engine with the 328/328 cam that had such a weak vacuum signal that it needed a special Qjet without a power piston or primary metering rods. Yeah, I believe that.

Olds also published brochures that claimed that both of these engines made less HP and torque than the W34 motor in the Toro, that had E heads, the crappy sunken intake, and the Toro log-style exhaust manifolds. Kinda begs the question of why Olds went through all the cost and trouble to design and cast the unique heads and intake for the W-30 just to make LESS HP than the Toro.

Yeah, I'm sure the 10 lbs per HP corporate limit in the A-body cars had NOTHING at all to do with a 370 HP rating in a car with a 3700 lb curb weight.

Rocketguy

That's the best comeback I've read in a long time.

Koda

This reminds me of Real Olds Power 15 years ago.

Diego

So, Joe, which factory stock 455 do you think is putting out the most hp? I'm talking about stock exhaust manifolds, which may negate the cam advantage as opined by Luke.

1969w3155

The list of cars that Roger Huntington tested back in the day had a '70 W30, but it did not have any H/O cars. Were there any other articles from then that did have tests on them?

joe_padavano

If you are talking about peak HP (as opposed to area under the curve), I'll still go with the 1970 MT motor.

Koda

The W-30 MT engine would seem to be more powerful based on the components used. I'm not sure a street performance apples to apples can be made
due to differences in curb weight, transmissions, shifting, etc, and there are no new factory examples left to drag race.

joe_padavano

The question wasn't "street performance". It wasn't quickest in the quarter mile. It was "most power".

Koda

Yes, which is why I said the first sentence, then continued on. I know we're not aerospace, but us mechanical engs's can read, too, boss.

83hurstguy

A talented engine builder on the yenko forum built a blueprinted '70 W30 motor, stock 328 cam, compression was set at 10:1 instead of the advertised 10.5 (factory motors were typically in the 9's regardless of advertised compression, and that's been documented). It made 410 hp, 485 lb-ft torque. So, slightly underrated, but not nearly what the Huntington list claims.

https://www.yenko.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1316189

joe_padavano

One data point is not a statistically valid sample.

83hurstguy

Neither are internet opinions.

joe_padavano

No argument there.

Bigmikey65

A friend had his ‘70 W30 stick motor rebuilt years ago He had to replace the cam but otherwise everything else was left stock. The replacement cam had a little more lift but less duration. The machine shop put it on the Dyno with headers. They apparently didn’t want to push it during break in but the numbers were 419 hp/534 torque @5000 rpm with 32 degrees of timing. That’s the story as he remembers it.

83hurstguy

Quoting my post above... What's interesting on this test is the gain with headers (31 hp). When we dyno'd my '68 engine (308* cam), it only picked up 10 HP with headers (it probably helped that I tested with 2.5" exhaust on the manifolds). It goes to show how larger cams need to breathe.

Check out the Olds Engineering data where the difference in tested horsepower between production AT and MT '70 W30 engines was <5 hp (table towards the bottom):
https://www.hotrod.com/articles/hors...r-1960s-1970s/

Olds engineering picked up 24 hp on the AT W30 engine with headers, and 46 hp on the MT W30 engine.

costpenn

My 68 W46 just feels quicker than the 70 W30 Auto.

hurst68olds

great thread - obviously the '68 is more better

69CSHC

Great subject Diego. Your business is research and expounding on it. One of my hobbies has been reviewing and soaking in that research and take from guys like you for the past 35 years. So I would love to give my 2 cents.

1968/1969 Hurst Olds are the most powerful (not quickest) vehicles with the word Olds in their title ever, IMHO.
1966 W30 is the quickest pure Olds or hybrid (Hurst engineered) ever. Do to its lightweight, great power and ultra aggressive set-up.
1970 W30 is the most powerful pure Olds ever. (On paper the 1968-1970 Toro GT W34 should be with 400 HP but they are overrated...)
1970 W30 earned their reputation from a combination of great power, name recognition, and abundance. As well as resting on the perceived peak overall year for original muscle era.

I have been in search of what the quickest most powerful Olds is for decades. Between the components, weight, and published road tests, the above is my conclusion.

In the end when all 4 Cutlass models I mentioned are set up most aggressively their performance numbers are very close to each other.

Diego

Thanks for your feedback, Phil!

CANADIANOLDS

it was rated higher because it was. although both ratings were less than actual.

the smaller chamber on the D heads actually bumped compession to 11.1 to 1 when they put them on the 10.25 to 1 455 in 68..... thats a big difference. both cams had the same lift while the 328 cam had very slow long opening and closing ramps. the 328 wasnt needed because all the power was made well under 6000

the 308 was a very good fit,, huge low and mid range power

83hurstguy

D heads are the same combustion chamber size as all the others... somehow the NHRA minimum spec has been construed as what left the assembly line over the last few decades. Anybody I've asked who has actually CC'd their heads (including me) has found them to be 80cc or greater.

OLDSter Ralph

x 2

CANADIANOLDS

Do you know what the dish CC’s are for the 68/69 400 piston?

OLDSter Ralph

OLDSter Ralph

1.70 CC Minimum

CANADIANOLDS