TK-65

First I have say that at least they finally got around to featuring a 67 in HMM. Only been 10 years or so. But truthfully the feature is full, FULL, of errors. It reads like the author never asked anyone with a clue about these cars. Article is nice to look at but per usual with almost every Olds feature the facts are totally off base. Last month an article said the 77 442 was the 2nd highest seller behind the 1970 models. Neither one was top 5.

Dave Siltman

Jasen, you are spot on buddy. I wish the articles (few as they may be) would contain accurate info. There are certainly enough sources for the writers to obtain the true facts. Oh well, any ink is sometimes better than no ink.

TK-65

Errors that I read..

Functional hood louvers on 67s.

Jetaway transmissons in 67 442s.

No floor shift autos in 66 or automatic consoles.

Only L69 cars got the vacuum gauge, on a consolette??

B07 package in 64 (B09).

Bucket seats were standard in 66 442s (F85 442s could not be had with buckets).

Hurst linkage first used on 3 speeds in 67 (1965)

L69s mandated a 4 speed (not true)

15 inch SS1 wheels were available in 67.

Why write something like a buyers guide and have so many errors? Not once did they say anything about W30 cars being built only in Lansing or how to spot a real Lansing built 442 (5V) Wouldnt the last two things be very important to a buyer?

Diego

This is not the first time their "Buyer's Guide" has been rife with errors. At least call it a "Spotlight" so it isn't posed as a resource for someone interested in buying one of these cars.

TK-65

What really got me was no autos on the floor for 66. Where is the hell did they read that?? I knew all of em came with Tri Carbs but I didnt know that all autos were on the column.

wmachine

Let's add:
Tri-Carb, not Tri-Power mentioned numerous time. If you want to talk historically, be historically correct.

There was no F41 suspension option. The components had individual broadcast codes and were std on 442s.

They implied that the "larger camshaft" was not part of the L69 package, but it was mated to all stick 442s (except W30s)

There were 504 '67 w30s, but they can be excused for that, as the 504 number surfaced fairly recently.

They started off okay with the rears, but really messed that up. The "P-type" is the rear, not the carrier and was used in most of the 442s, not just the W30s. and the 4-pinion carriers were likewise *not* exclusive to the W30. The 4-pinion carriers were in many non-w30 442s, mostly stick cars. Olds did not "tap into the corporate resources" for the L69 and W30. All '66-'67s had either Pontiac or Buick rears, except some '67s had the new "O' type Olds rear (none of the W30s got the O-type). P-types contain the full range of carriers including open. The '67 W30 did not mandate the 4.33s, the 4.33 was standard for the 4-spd with 3.90 and 3.55 optional, the autos were 3.55 std with 3.90 and 4.33 optional. '66 W30s came with 4.11s.

Redline tires were std., not optional.

W30s mandated an M21, not just a manual trans.

In '67 the 442 was not available on the Cutlass, but the Cutlass Supreme.

"while a vacuum gauge was installed on a consolette when the L69 was ordered" I don't even know what they mean, but I'll guarantee it is wrong. L69 had nothing to do with gauges" Try mentioning the side dash tach in '66 vs. the Rally Pac tach of '67.

Not to mention slants like the hp rating were "advertised ratings", not actuals as stated like they are factual.

TK-65

Really the focus should have been on either 66 or 67. Theres so much to say about both cars.

It just gets me that with all the racing and dealer sponsored cars from back then, we still have to read tripe like that article. No facts, no snapshots from that time, no firsthand speak, and not even anything from the guys that know those cars well today. No mention of the Brainbeau car from 66? Come on.

joe_padavano

Yet another example of why I dropped my subscription to HMM...

aliensatemybuick

Did the article at least have some nice photos to look at?

I useta subscribe to HMM, let it lapse several years back (got tired of reading about $10K Sikkens paint jobs, guys afraid to put their convertible tops down for fear of causing permanent wrinkles, wiping their cars dry with diapers, etc. etc.) deciding to buy the occasional issue when a car I was interested in was featured.

Since it looks like I'll be keeping the '67 (), I'll probably pick up the current issue...but only if there are lots of nice pics.

Diego

I don't think the old race cars are necessary in a Buyer's Guide.

One of you guys who are sharp on these cars should write a letter to the editor. A letter in print with the corrections would be a good service.

TK-65

Point being Olds has a lot of history from the mid 60s that gets no attention. The article said that no ETs exist from the 66 W30s, but they supposively ran high 12s to low 13s. The UFO article on the Rund car from 66 has ETs and MPHs. The 66 Brainbeau car was national champion. Why not mention that?

Besides all that getting overlooked the article cant even get the basics correct. I think the author went to 442.com, which is mentioned often, and used that for his story.

Diego

They are talking about old magazine road tests, of which no '66s exist. A race car in sanctioned drag racing is not the kind of car for which you get ETs to quote.

Off the top of my head, I think there's a '67 W-30 that hit 13.99 or so.