344870M

I think that amongst most musclecar owners, the 69 H/O & the 70 W30 are considered to be the epitome of Oldsmobile performance. I say mc owners because most of the mc mags have represented it this way. And since I've never driven a 66 Drag Pack or a W-31, I don't want to pigeon hole the contenders down to just two. I do know for a fact though that my '75 Cutlass Supreme w/260 auto was not the quickest Olds ever made.

Since I've never been to an all Olds drag meet, what's the consensus? Which is the quickest Olds made? Obviously driver enthusiasm behind the wheel plays a big part in this so I'll accept bench racing results as well.

Oh yeah. Every one better say the '70 W-30 or I'm not playing here anymore.

Olds64

Actually, it is my Sandalwood 1971 Olds 98 Luxury Sedan.

Truthfully, I would have to say the 1970 or 1971 W31s were probably the fastest stock Oldsmobiles, but that is just a guess.

344870M

My parents had a '69 and a a '75 98 L/S's. Biggest cars I have ever seen. They were cavernous inside. And you're right. I think the 98's were serious contenders. Light, nimble....

wmachine

Not stirring the pot?

Speaking strictly stock? '66 W30. I think an objective look at the power, weight, and equipment would support that. A case could be made for others if you factor in traction, but the first W30 still gets my nod.

joe_padavano

You beat me to it. These cars owned the NHRA C/Stock class that year.

agtw31

but how fast were the 66w-30's???

W-31's consistently ran 12.70's,sometimes 12.60's in NHRA competititon

Dave Stimelt has a 12.66 timeslip from back in '69 that came out of his old W-31

looking at old pics,i see times of 12.50 to 12.70 on the windows of 70 and 71 W-30 stock eliminator cars
don't know what they were beating the index by though.

Olds64

Of course, there is a difference between quickest 1/4 mile time and fastest (ie. highest mph).

The overall fastest is probably the Oldsmobile Aerotech. It was a concept car though.

344870M

haha That's why I left the field open. The MC mags seemed to tout these two cars only. I think because they (or I) haven't seen many '66 W-30's. That trunk mounted battery offers up some nice traction advantages.

And again, there are sooo many factors. An auto provides much more consistency whereas the RPM's can be manipulated better with a stick. Drivers make a big, big difference as well. I know that I have never driven my car the way my Dad did the day we test drove it.......!

I've only ever owned one true performance car and all I know is that mine scares me. Bad.

Now this is just my opinion. I would be more hesitant to go up against the '66 than a '69.

wmachine

From Joe Donnelly:
"The Rund 66 Olds raced by John Molnar and Vance Brady was written up in Dec 66 and Feb 67 Hi Perf Cars, best e.t. in magazine 12.38; actual best that year was 12.15 sec. according to time sllips in Molnar's scrapbook."

344870M

A lot hairier stuff came along from everyone in the following years. But yes, I do agree.

344870M

Agreed. But I think we'll stick with quickest for this thread.

Should we open it up some to include 'tweaking'? We all know that these cars never showed up at the testing grounds without it. And drag racers have their own tricks. Heck, lowering the air pressure in the tires deviates from stock but can improve times.

On a side note. I have had two people familiar with my car say they remember seeing the tires come off the ground. While I relish the stories, I do not believe them. It takes a lot of oooomph to do that.

Summerof84

The '66 gets my vote too.
My former brother in laws tunnel rammed full zoot gutted drag car (ch*vy powered '67 Belvedere) could only pull one wheel, so I doubt yours did.
Well, there's always railroad crossings. I watched a '75 Mustang pull the fronts... and the rears... that way!

mugzilla

By 71cars that were modified were state of the art(fastest) ...

For factory 1970 had the biggest engines/valves ...

The first w30s were crafted with care and depending on gear trac etc could hang ...

as for wheelies I recommend a convertible or boxed frame, or at least a trailer hitch...

344870M

A looong time ago when my Dad worked at the mill he worked with a guy who had a Shelby. Swore he could pull the front end as high as a Coke bottle. One night after work he invited everyone out to the parking lot. According to my Dad he tached it up, way up, dumped the clutch, the front end went up.....and he slowly drifted forward thru a debris field of trans parts. Don't know how much truth there is in that but it's entertaining.

wmachine

*Every* year's cars that were modified were state of the art. And they kept getting faster and quicker.

Yes, *but*! The part of the equation that seems to be often missing is *weight*. Very simple, more weight takes more power. '70 442s weighed considerably more than '66 442s.

wmachine

In stock form, I don't believe it either. It not only takes oooomph, it takes chassis mods to make that happen. To "get power to the pavement", the object is to get weight transfer to the rear for traction. "More air" may look cool, but it doesn't get you down the track quicker.
Like tire burning. May look cool to some, but burning rubber is a lack of traction that doesn't make for a quick car.
The '70s were full of tire-burning jacked up fat-tired Novas that couldn't beat a station wagon in a race.

joe_padavano

Entertaining, yes. Truthful? Doubtful without wrinkle-wall slicks and a four link rear suspension.

344870M

Considerably more? All my data points to a '66 cutlass holiday coupe tipping the scales at 3454 (the lightest of the models) and the '70 holiday coupe coming in at 3695. That's 241 give or take differences in both cars actual weights. What constitutes 'considerable' in drag racing vernacular? Both cars were rated at about the same hp and as far as torque (the real worker behind winning) the '66 is edged out by the '70. Maybe that extra torque compensates for the considerably more lard azz weight of the '70.

How were the '66's geared? If memory serves me correctly I think they came pretty steep? Is this right?

344870M

I found the drag results for a '66 during a musclecar shootout. I would assume this driver had the necessary enthusiasm needed to produce a representative result. 4 spd car w/4:10's 13.341 @ 106.85

I found several '68 Hurst results but no '69's I'll rummage through my stash and see what I have. Did the '69 H/O offer various gears or just the 3:90's?

wmachine

I'll dig up my figures later, but the lightest model of both (every) years are the "post coupes". It would be the '66 F85 Club Coupe vs. the '70 442 Sports Coupe. Figure your power to weight ratios.
'66 W30s came standard with 4.11s.

BTW, it is always easy to remember which models weigh the least: "the more metal you see, the lighter the car". Post Coupes are the lightest, Holiday Coupes (pillar-less hardtops) are next, with the Convertibles weighing the most.

mugzilla

Up until about 70 71


That extra weight will plant the tires and both cars weigh about3400 lbs.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_Cutlass)


I tend to extremes when I lighten a car ...

Mikes442-C0001.jpg

I drove from the front to the back garage like this.

344870M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPFTFsL1uzk

wmachine

? How about up until today?

Not true!

bccan

Loved the video of white '66. Shows how a good car & good driver come together. That thing launches great and hauls the mail! I think the '66 wins this debate, closely followed by W-31. I am too young to have been there, by the time I found drag racing, these cars were 10-15 years old. Had a W-31 in '79/80 - old woman ran a stop sign in front of me & I T-Boned her - totalled. Had drive train prepped for next project but ended up selling it - needed $$. It is funny when I look back & think how "normal" muscle cars still were in late 70's, early 80's - dime a dozen & didn't think twice about modifications. That is what makes unmolested or faithfully restored cars special. Just can't figure out where all these extra Hemis, W's, LS6's, COPO's have "emerged" from nowadays! Even w/ all the attrition over the years, I think there are appx twice as many in existence than originally produced!

wmachine

I can! They were hiding inside 318 Chargers, 350 Cutlasses, 327 Chevelles, and 6-cyl Camaros!!

jensenracing77

how true. this is why i will not put 442 badging on my wifes cutlass.

captjim

If we are talking stock form, bias ply tires and all, don't forget the Ram Rod. IMO, one of the most under rated cars of the era. Many of the true muscle cars had mid-high 14 second ETs with "stock" tires. I had a buddy with an LS 6 Chevelle. Bolted on headers, 4.88s, lightened it, and slicks and ran 11.8s. With street tires, I can't tell you how many times I saw 340 Dusters kill big block powered cars. The Ram Rod did not launch too hard (making for reasonable traction) revved quickly and would run a high 13 on a good day. IIRC, Dave H said 13.3 was his best time, stock manifolds and all, but not certain about that.

"The '70s were full of tire-burning jacked up fat-tired Novas that couldn't beat a station wagon in a race."

Good line by wmachine , and true. There is MUCH more to a good ET than power weight ratios. As always, IMO.

mugzilla

I guess you can dig up all kinds of stuff until you find the "Documentation"you are looking for ...

mugzilla

oops...

The 1966 Oldsmobile Cutlass 4-4-2

Specifications
Wheelbase, inches: 115.0
Weight, lbs: 3,600
Number built: 21,997
Base price: $3,500

Top Available Engine
Type: ohv V-8
Displacement, cid: 400
Fuel system: 3 x 2bbl.
Compression ratio: 10.5:1
Horsepower @ rpm: 360 @ 5000
Torque @ rpm: 440 @ 3600

Representative Performance
0-60 miles per hour, sec: 7.0
1/4 mile, sec. @ miles per hour: 15.28 @ 94

Where they got 4200 lbs for the 67 is beyond me ...

344870M

Only to those who understand that convertibles have heavier frames. Otherwise you're looking at a car with no roof which would appear to make it lighter.

344870M

Some of those numbers for the '66 seem a little slow. 15.3?! I think my 4200lb Starfire did better than that. I ran a 9.36 in the 1/8th
with that barge.

And the numbers for the '70 are skewed by the fact that every test (that I have seen) has been in a p/s, p/b 3:42 geared comfort car. I have yet to see results for a real 442. One with a 4 spd (I'm guessing the cam will make a difference) and real steep gears.

Since the '66 was a 'true' 442, 400 4 spd dual exhaust or 400 4 barrel dual exhaust (pick one) I cry foul on the posted results of the '70. Let's get a real 442. 4 barrel, 4 spd dual exhaust. Surely someone has results.

C'mon H/o enthusiasts, I'm curious about these cars too. They're too cool to be left out. I think they ran close to what the '70's did.

The small block cars? I'm not convinced yet. I give them higher rpm's and more top end but every race I've ever seen, the big blocks always came out of nowhere at the end of the 1/4. But that's just my experience.

mugzilla

Like a Polara weighing 3200 lbs ...

And no cu in restriction ...

mugzilla

When I race I look at a guys tires ...

If he's running 9" I'll give it a go ...

bccan

I think part of the problem w/ trying to measure quarter mile performance is that all these cars had such variable equipment/options. Engine/trans/axle ratio, a/c or not, etc plays a major role in acceleration. Add to that we are all intermixing magazine road tests(sometimes ringers, sometimes not), w/GM specs, w/ stock class racing, then add the nationally competitive stock racers. When in the hands of an "average" driver most of these cars would be running 15's, add a good driver & tires you could probably knock a second off.

If that car was equipped right, take another 1/2 to full second off. Now blueprint, tweak, test etc + a pro driver and you have a "stock" car in the 12's. I don't think any of these cars, fresh off the showroom floor had any more than a mid 13 in them and even that would have been VERY dependent on really having all the right options w/ a good driver.

With all the hype & numbers of today's supercars I think we forget that any car - old or modern that can put down a quarter mile in under 15 seconds is a fast car by most people's standards. Something that can run in the 13's is very fast - nothing that's not an upper end performer can do it out of the showroom door. Seeing road tests w/ new tuner cars and top Vette running 11's(w/ pro drivers) is AMAZING. But let's not forget those same cars in the bumbling hooves of the "average" driver are mid 13 runners. So all in all, 40+ years of evolution & technology haven't advanced the qtr mile accel of a well equipped car & driver all that much. But boy have the packages gotten environmentally friendlier & all around comfort, driveability & safety have come light years past our cars.

Now if I only had a spare $100K - $250K I could pull 1g on a skid pad, stop from 70 miles per hour in 125 feet, drive to & from the track @ 200 miles per hour to put down a mid 12 while drinking a Slurpee with the A/C on. A little out of my reach but i'd love to try it! That said I would still always want to have a vintage muscle car for the fun & enjoyment they posess even if they tend to be "one trick ponies". Hopefully I'll always have one in the garage.

344870M

Bumbling hooves. I like that. That would be me. My dad however has the knack.

I agree that there were most definitely ringers issued to some testing sources. I'm sure the hemi cars, Camaros and 'stangs were while others were sent out equipped the way they might sell off the showroom floor. Why Olds (in 1970 at least) send out their flagship performance car w/auto, air, p/s, p/b and 3:42's is beyond me. Maybe they saw the end coming?

Now correct me if I'm wrong on this. Weren't the '66 W's and H/O's essentially available "one way"? Meaning the drivetrain options were pretty much as tested and more representative. That still doesn't rule out a little tweaking from the factory though. Did all H/O come w/AC and 3:90's and all '66 W's come w/4:33's as mentioned earlier?

Today's supercars.... IMO they are lightyears ahead in performance. I think that if I were to drive my W down the 1/4 and then simply aim a ZR1 down the 1/4, I'd get a better run out of the 'vette.

Can anyone imagine what an electronically controlled, mulitport fuel injected 6 speed 455 could do today? Take today's tech and yesterdays cubes and !!!

wmachine

Of course not. They usually sent a car that was their "best foot forward". It wasn't *all* about quarter mile times. Actually, Oldsmobile's claim to fame was to be the best *handling* musclecar of the day. And they arguably were! Quickness wasn't (and still isn't) the only measure of a musclecar.

One way? No. Less options? Certainly.
"Came with..." needs to be clarified. When you say "only came with", the answer is no. I don't know if the '69 H/Os had optional gears, but the '66 W30 did. The *standard* gear for the '66 W30 was 4.11, with 4.33, and 3.90 optional. ('67 W30s had the 4.33 standard with the 3.90 and 3.55 optional.) And though the there were only 54 factory cars made, it still covered 4 differert models. There was considerable array of options that were on them collectively, and I wouldn't be surprised if no 2 ended up being exactly the same.

So with all of the variables with how the cars are delivered for the tests coupled with the difficulty getting the car to hook up with stock tires (especially the '66 W30 with earlier tire technology), times could be expected to be (and were) all over the map.
Just another reason the debates continue today.

344870M

I don't know Kurt. For a car to be classified as a musclecar one would expect performance too. And the watered down version of the W that Olds sent out was not representative of that. Handling is in the criteria but they needed to represent the whole package. IMO On a side note. I have a pic somewhere of a '68 (I think) with "Performance Car of The Year" emblazoned on it. The car is captured maneuvering around a turn and it looks like the tire is going to be pulled off the rim! It makes me wonder just how badly everything else handled back then.

Basically what I was getting at about the '66 W's was that they were coming pretty much better equipped (gear/tranny) than some of the other cars tested in the Olds field. Not that it isn't fair. If that's how they came, that's how they came, period. I just wish we could find results for any Olds performance car where each contender was maxed out to their available potential.

Testing a steep geared manual 442 wouldn't be fair to a higher geared Rally 350 w/auto and full accessories. Finding these results is going to be futile I'm sure. But it would be interesting.

Given the current info at hand I'm leaning towards the '66 W as strongest performer. Now should I ever decide to put my W back together and take it for a run.........

wmachine

The point was "all around best". Not *the* fastest/quickest. It was the "Performance Car of the Year" not "Quickest Car of the Year". Watered down? Just the opposite. It was considered to be enhanced. I believe that the '68 award was from Motor Trend. In the subject article, you'll find word like "balanced" and "refined". The magazine reviews were never intended to be a measure of the fastest/quickest cars.

Cameo White

The 69 H/O had 3 possible rear end ratios:

Standard on the A/C cars was a 3.23
Standard on the non-A/C cars was a 3.42
Optional on the non-A/C cars was a 3.91

This information is from a photocopy of a Hurst document dated April 7, 1969.

344870M

Oh I agree. But I think we may be on two different discussions here. I have no problem with the '68 (or any other year or make ) being named a "performance" car. I was however commenting on how all other cars must have handled if this was the best Detroit could muster at the time. I know how my car handles with it's raved about front and rear sway bars. I think my wife's Aztek might handle better than my 442. lol It must have been pretty scary out there all those years ago.

Now my definition (and I would assume many others) of a "musclecar" is not a car that can slalom, stop on a dime or has a zero turn radius but rather a car that will cause involuntary bowel evacuations upon acceleration. When most people put their musclecar (by definition) of choice to the test they do it at the drags. And if they lose, they don't say "Oh yeah? Well I bet I stop quicker than you do."


I believe based on some of the cars that were sent out that GM, Ford and Chrysler were trying to say "Look at the monster we're unleashing on the street". Some got it right, some didn't. If Olds didn't want to be seen this way they could have sent out regular 442's with the same quality underpinnings and not the (yes) watered down version of a W-30. I'm sure that those nose heavy, over geared, Hemi powered brutes Dodges sent to the test tracks never had any delusions of becoming the all around performance car of the year. They were targeting an audience. And they did it right.