In doing some research I have read the 68 442 turnpike cruiser was not only a 2 v carb but also lower compression, probably smaller cam etc. does anyone know actual facts on this motor? Same cylinder heads as the standard 400 442? Same cam, if not what cam? Obviously rear gears were tall..

What was the compression etc. Finally will the vin or data plate say its a turnpike car? Appreciate any info.

 

The 1968 Turnpike Cruiser package on the 442 was the same RPO L65 2bbl 400 motor that was also optionally available on the Vista Cruiser that year. 9.00:1 compression. Same "C" head castings as every other non-W BBO that year, but small valves. Same cam as used in the 325 HP AT version of the 400. Unique OH code TH400.

There is nothing in the VIN that tells you which engine is in the car.

 

So the same head stamping yet smaller valves? On olds is the compression in the head chamber or would the low compression be a dished piston? Thank you sir.

 

Yes, the pistons on the turnpike motor had a deep dish. In the case of the "G" block 400, the 4bbl 10.5:1 motors had flat-top pistons. The 9.00:1 2bbl pistons had a sizable dish in them, I think it was close to 3/16 or a 1/4 inch.

 

The heads are castings, not stampings, and yes, the CR was changed by using pistons with different volume dishes. The high compression 400 used flattop pistons. The low compression version had dished pistons. The combustion chambers in the heads were the same, about 80cc.

 

Thanks folks..looking at a potential purchase of one..

 

https://classicoldsmobile.com/forums...ruiser-121323/


Another CO thread.
Google search engine is superior to the one here.

 

I was always under the impression the Turnpike Cruiser was not badged as a 442. Am I wrong again?

 

That is true for the 1967 model year, when the Turnpike Cruiser was a Cutlass Supreme. For the 1968 model year, it was only offered on the 442.

 

This car did what it was supposed to for sure, improved mileage from 15 MPG to 18 MPG when compared to a regular 442. But it came at an enormous cost in accelerative performance. If your looking into it/buying it for what it is, great. If your thinking what can I do to this thing to get it up to speed you will have plenty to deal with.

Turnpike Cruiser posted a 0-60 time of 8.7 seconds compared to the 4-4-2’s 7.1, and a quarter-mile E.T. of 16.5 at 85 MPH versus 15.5 at 91 MPH. Motor Trend

Obviously it was severely detuned and speed performance was abysmal for a big block muscle era 442.

PS Would I own one today ? definitely ! Would I have bought one in 1968 ? no way. To me buying one back then would of been like getting a late 80s Fox Body Stang with a 4 cylinder...

 

Why would you want to own one today? A 442 that gets dusted by minivan at a stoplight is not my idea of a musclecar. Rarity does not equate to desirability or value.

 

I totally hear you Joe, my take is its still a real 442. Even if its a neutered one. I wouldn't buy it with resale in mind and I would never pay regular 442 prices. But it is a 344 vin car vs my 342... I don't know.. maybe you're right, even fully understanding what you are saying and knowing what it is I am putting value on it that it doesn't deserve....

 

I would have no problem owning one, swap out the intake and carb and throw in a better set of gears. Most modern cars are quicker than a lot of our old musclecars.

 

That's the whole point. As soon as you swap the intake and gears, (and reprogram the TH400 shift points), it is no longer a Turnpike Cruiser, just a regular AT 442.

 

I was looking at one with the idea of a rebuild of engine etc and bringing up the compression some, cam swap etc, but yea you’re right..didn’t think about trans shift points, rear gears etc. The deal fell thru anyway, the guy doesn’t seem to understand turnpike cruiser is 15-20% less than a standard 442.. He was throwing around the “ rare” word. I told him rare and desirable are not synonymous.. I will keep looking, no hurry, right thing will come around in time.

 

They are rare because why would a buyer in 1968 have paid a $237 premium for a 442 to get 10% LESS HP and a crappy gear ratio?

Even for 15-20% less than the price of a comparable "real" 442 today, you'll have to put more than that into it (pistons, valves, cam, intake, carb, air cleaner, trans, rear axle) just to get back to the performance of a stock 442. I remain confused as to why anyone would want a Turnpike Cruiser.

I understand that it's often cool to own something out of the ordinary, even if it isn't the top performer, but I'd rather have an F85 with three-on-the-tree in that case - and I definitely wouldn't pay 442 money for it.

 

I hear ya, for me it was because the car was a 3 owner, rust free original. I would rather not have a turnpike car for
sure...Trying to find a car thats not patched together, wrong motor, wrong trans, for a reasonable price is not easy. However i gave the guy an offer I could live with, he turned it down so its onto the next search.