When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Yes we know the G block 400 is way under square but I've been in several over the years and they always seemed to get the job done. They run great, will easily run 14 second 1/4 mile times in stock form with 3.42 gears.
Yes, today’s vehicles with 8 or more speed transmissions can accelerate faster with a 300 horsepower engine that our antiques with a 3 speed and 1.5x the horsepower.
"Competitive" is a nice description for "slow". Run a 400G against a 400E and tell me what would happen.
Originally Posted by DR_DAN
we all know the E would be faster even pulling the G 400 car with a chain
Show me a road test from the era that backs this up. As they came from the factory, they'd run about the same -- probably high 14s/low 15s, depending on gearing. Sure, the E has a lot more potential but off the showroom floor, they'd be within a couple of tenths and the G might even be a tick faster off the lights due to its superior low-end torque characteristics.
This is about how it stacked up against the in-house competition of the day, too. All GM's 400 cube entries were good for high 14s/low 15s when equipped with the base engine, TH400 and similar gearing
Show me a road test from the era that backs this up. As they came from the factory, they'd run about the same -- probably high 14s/low 15s, depending on gearing. Sure, the E has a lot more potential but off the showroom floor, they'd be within a couple of tenths and the G might even be a tick faster off the lights due to its superior low-end torque characteristics.
This is about how it stacked up against the in-house competition of the day, too. All GM's 400 cube entries were good for high 14s/low 15s when equipped with the base engine, TH400 and similar gearing
You look up magazine articles. I was there, I lived it. High 14's/low 15's was W-31 territory at the drag strip. My brother bought a new 1968 W-31 before I got my Hurst/Olds and he hung around me, but knew better than to take on my E block. I played with the Quadrajet and distributor for my brother and he could run with the G blocks, but not the "Goats".(GTO's) or E blocks.
Off the showroom floor, G blocks were no quicker o.ff the line. In fact, I thought the 68-69 G blocks with automatics were downgraded to 325 HP. The E blocks were a good 3-4 tenths of a second quicker in the quarter mile. For reference, a tenth of a second difference translates to "one car length" at the end of the quarter mile. So. "a couple tenths" by your estimation would still be two car lengths behind.
You look up magazine articles. I was there, I lived it. High 14's/low 15's was W-31 territory at the drag strip. My brother bought a new 1968 W-31 before I got my Hurst/Olds and he hung around me, but knew better than to take on my E block. I played with the Quadrajet and distributor for my brother and he could run with the G blocks, but not the "Goats".(GTO's) or E blocks.
Off the showroom floor, G blocks were no quicker o.ff the line. In fact, I thought the 68-69 G blocks with automatics were downgraded to 325 HP. The E blocks were a good 3-4 tenths of a second quicker in the quarter mile. For reference, a tenth of a second difference translates to "one car length" at the end of the quarter mile. So. "a couple tenths" by your estimation would still be two car lengths behind.
Well, I can find it in black and white, which is probably better than going with my increasingly unreliable memory or old-time anecdotal evidence and I'm guessing you may have a few years on me.
The '68-9 G-motors did indeed suffer a 25 HP handicap when equipped with the TH400 but the torque was all there, and that's what gets you moving.
You look up magazine articles. I was there, I lived it. High 14's/low 15's was W-31 territory at the drag strip. My brother bought a new 1968 W-31 before I got my Hurst/Olds and he hung around me, but knew better than to take on my E block. I played with the Quadrajet and distributor for my brother and he could run with the G blocks, but not the "Goats".(GTO's) or E blocks.
Off the showroom floor, G blocks were no quicker o.ff the line. In fact, I thought the 68-69 G blocks with automatics were downgraded to 325 HP. The E blocks were a good 3-4 tenths of a second quicker in the quarter mile. For reference, a tenth of a second difference translates to "one car length" at the end of the quarter mile. So. "a couple tenths" by your estimation would still be two car lengths behind.
Originally Posted by BangScreech4-4-2
Well, I can find it in black and white, which is probably better than going with my increasingly unreliable memory or old-time anecdotal evidence and I'm guessing you may have a few years on me.
The '68-9 G-motors did indeed suffer a 25 HP handicap when equipped with the TH400 but the torque was all there, and that's what gets you moving.
BTW, wasn't the H/O a 455 rather than an E-block?
The H/O in my avatar was taken in 1969. I bought the 1968 H/O new before it had even arrived at the dealer. Not sure what you were driving back then.
Until may or June 1968 when the H/O arrived, I was driving a 1965 442 convertible (Sherwood Green, black top, white interior) with an E block from a 1966. I switched from the B block to the E block so I could run the 39 degree W-30 cam. My brother got his W-31 in the fall of 1967, so there was a period of time when I had my convertible at the same time as my brother's W-31, and he ran it at the drag strip a few times.
Show me a road test from the era that backs this up. As they came from the factory, they'd run about the same -- probably high 14s/low 15s, depending on gearing. Sure, the E has a lot more potential but off the showroom floor, they'd be within a couple of tenths and the G might even be a tick faster off the lights due to its superior low-end torque characteristics.
This is about how it stacked up against the in-house competition of the day, too. All GM's 400 cube entries were good for high 14s/low 15s when equipped with the base engine, TH400 and similar gearing
I’m not here to argue with you. The G 400 is no comparison to the E 400. Sounds like you have a G 500 and want it to be fast. The reason why the W31 was made is be a the G 400 was a dog. The W31 was much quicker than a 442 in 68/69. It’s facts man
Yes you are, but that's fine. I have no skin in the game one way or the other. I just want you to read what I'm saying -- there is no question but that the E400 had much more potential than the G400. But as delivered, there wasn't that much to choose between them.
And as for the W-31 being faster than the same year 4-4-2, well, I suppose it's possible but find me the road test. The W-31/Ram Rod was actually developed as a low-content/cost "junior supercar" and not meant to compete with the 4-4-2, which by '68 was being marketed to older, more affluent buyers.
Yes you are, but that's fine. I have no skin in the game one way or the other. I just want you to read what I'm saying -- there is no question but that the E400 had much more potential than the G400. But as delivered, there wasn't that much to choose between them.
And as for the W-31 being faster than the same year 4-4-2, well, I suppose it's possible but find me the road test. The W-31/Ram Rod was actually developed as a low-content/cost "junior supercar" and not meant to compete with the 4-4-2, which by '68 was being marketed to older, more affluent buyers.
as delivered the G 400 was a dog and the whole Oldsmobile world accepts it except you. The W31 was created because the G 400 was a dog. The end. I’m not arguing, i providing facts
FTFY. Also translated to English. I think you're still arguing, although it's hard to tell because of your apparent ESL status. You might also try citing an actual source for your "facts".
FTFY. Also translated to English. I think you're still arguing, although it's hard to tell because of your apparent ESL status. You might also try citing an actual source for your "facts".
do you have a car with. G 400? What state are you in? If close enough, I’ll race you heads up and show you how far ahead the E 400 will be.
Unlike you, I went ahead and filled in the location part of my user profile, so if you care to glance at it you can see I live on Vancouver Island. I have no idea where you are, but come on up and let's do this thing! If you can get across the border, that is.
Last edited by BangScreech4-4-2; Jun 14, 2023 at 09:31 AM.
Unlike you, I went ahead and filled in the location part of my user profile, so if you care to glance at it you can see I live on Vancouver Island. I have no idea where you Are, but come on up and let's do this thing! If you can get across the border, that is.
dude you started the name calling and etc. Vancouver, you know I’m in the southeast. You have serious security issues
Newsflash: no one cares. Resto-nerds are going to use the G if the car came with one. Performance guys will steer clear, unless they're clueless idiots like me and try to build one up. It was ok, but not a screamer.
This shows a 66 442 and a three 68 442 track tests by car mags back in the 60’s..actual data..only way just one of the three 68 442’s ran faster was because it had 433 rear gears. Look at the mph in the 66 442 test versus mph in the 68’s. 66 definitely faster bone stock, apples to apples comparison..
I owned a 68 442 in the 70’s, while a fun car and definitely still oneI want back it wasn’t as quick as a buddy of mines 66 , both 4 speed cars..now thats one example..this link is interesting asit shows, gears, trans and what magazine did the track tests on many models back then.
.......My brother got his W-31 in the fall of 1967, so there was a period of time when I had my convertible at the same time as my brother's W-31, and he ran it at the drag strip a few times.
The 68 Ram Rod's weren't even released for production until Feb of 68....
This 69 bench seat 4 speed back in 72 could not get out of it's own way. 350 hp.327 Chevelle's laughed at me as they blew me off the line. Kept the car for about 18 months while I was putting together a 65 442-I dropped a 425 in it much better!
My goodness, the above picture is bringing back memories. Everyone had long hair, well except me and my fellow service members, every kid too young to drive a car or too poor to own one had a little motor bike (I did myself in H.S.), every one wanted a black leather jacket or a rough brown leather jacket with a sheep's wool collar (Like Dennis Weaver's character Mcloud), and finally everyone wanted a "cool car" and of course we all know 442 is one of the best!
Thanks Oldsguy-the picture of the maroon 425 442 shows the rear section of 69 Grand Prix and the seat of Harley 900CC Sportster....the motor bike in the 69 442 picture was a Honda 90.
This shows a 66 442 and a three 68 442 track tests by car mags back in the 60’s..actual data..only way just one of the three 68 442’s ran faster was because it had 433 rear gears. Look at the mph in the 66 442 test versus mph in the 68’s. 66 definitely faster bone stock, apples to apples comparison..
I owned a 68 442 in the 70’s, while a fun car and definitely still oneI want back it wasn’t as quick as a buddy of mines 66 , both 4 speed cars..now thats one example..this link is interesting asit shows, gears, trans and what magazine did the track tests on many models back then.
Andy - Great resource, and fun to check out! Thanks for sharing!
If I'm able to understand you correctly, you're saying I should somehow know where you live. Sorry, I don't have ESP.
Show me where I called you a name. I definitely never called you an "etc." whatever that is. We live in a low-crime area -- no security issues here.
The offer still stands.
offer still stands of what? Bring your car to Georgia, but make sure you spend a lot of time putting a big cam cylinder head headers an intake and everything else you need to go really ******* fast. You still won’t be able to out run my 67. I have called you out twice now, so there you go.
This shows a 66 442 and a three 68 442 track tests by car mags back in the 60’s..actual data..only way just one of the three 68 442’s ran faster was because it had 433 rear gears. Look at the mph in the 66 442 test versus mph in the 68’s. 66 definitely faster bone stock, apples to apples comparison..
I owned a 68 442 in the 70’s, while a fun car and definitely still oneI want back it wasn’t as quick as a buddy of mines 66 , both 4 speed cars..now thats one example..this link is interesting asit shows, gears, trans and what magazine did the track tests on many models back then.
Thanks for the post! This is a very useful resource, putting a wide variety of "back in the day" muscle car performance figures at your fingertips. A couple of things jump out at me, though.
1) To compare apples to apples, we have to consider the source(s). Hot Rod, Car Life, Super Stock, Car Craft and Popular Hot Rodding weren't above doing a little tweaking to obtain the best times, whereas Motor Trend usually ran bone stock as supplied by the manufacturer (to the extent that I can recall them publishing lackluster figures for a '68 Ranchero 390 GT that was suspected of having a dead cylinder, without attempting to diagnose or repair it), plus they always ran "two-up" and with a fifth wheel, besides. Who believes that the best an L-78 Chevelle can do is a 14.9? And as a wildcard, I'm sure we can all remember stories about Milt Schornack-prepared Royal Pontiac cars finding their way into the hands of unsuspecting magazine road testers.
There are no MT road tests of any E-block cars.
2) Regardless of source, the E's do run surprisingly well, and better than much of the competition. However, I stick to my assertion that the G's were at least mid-pack with the other muscle cars, GM or non-GM.
3) I find it interesting that the '68 W-30 ran so well (14 flat, 99 MPH) when equipped with the 4.33 gears. I had always thought that the W-30 tweaks were a waste of energy on the G block, trying to make it do things it was never designed to do.
4) E-block times are that much more impressive in light of my (unproven) belief the longer wheelbase '66-7 A-bodies may have actually been heavier than the '68-9s. As demonstrated by trap speeds, they were definitely making some horsepower.
Guys,
Just a FWIW, 'most' magazine test cars were either ringers, prototypes, or just flat out lies from the editors. This holds true to all the manufactures. Jim Wangers told me when we did some video interviews for Hot-Rod/Motor Trend TV. I'm sure you guys know the stories. Holman/Moody Stroppe did the same for the Fords. I did stuff when I was younger for Car-Craft, and when I witnessed a then testing of a slightly modified 1985 Monte Carlo SS run 15s at the track, the magazine 'test results' said it was in the 13s. I asked (to remain nameless, a well known editor) actually say to me its "Editorial hype" to sell issues. I also have a friend who owned a previous magazine test car: 1968 383 Road Runner, and when he tore it down it had 'special' non-production parts. Clearly, not a stock production car...aka 'ringer'. 'Most' stone stock Muscle Cars were in the 15s.
... but make sure you spend a lot of time putting a big cam ...
If you knew anything about G-blocks and engine design in general, you'd know that's about the last thing you'd want to do.
And I'm not coming down to Bugtussle, Ga. any more than you're coming to Vancouver Island so let's stop bullshitting, shall we? This is supposed to be a friendly discussion, not a pissing contest, and you come in here with all your guns blazing, overreacting to OP's simply stated premise rather than just making your argument and stating your case like a rational human person.
I'm sure your car is faster than mine. I never said it wouldn't be. Get over yourself.
