Hi all,

my all stock 1966 F85 coupe is driving good. At least I think it is, I can not compare because I never drove another US car from this era. Can someone tell me:
- what was the original max. speed that This car was capable of?
- what was the 0-60 time for this car?

I am asking because coolant gets a little warm (200 degree Fahrenheit) when driving in the highway with 70mph

All stock 1966 330cui F85 with an ST300. I don’t know the rear end ratio, but also stock.

thank you very much

 

200ish coolant temp is normal for these cars and a 66 F85 is not a performance car. It was in most cases an entry level lost leader grocery getter.
0-60 in 6.5 seconds, 1/4 mile in 14.9 depending on rear end.

 

More than you would probably ever want to know just a quick google away....Enjoy.

https://www.automobile-catalog.com/m...oupe/1966.html

 

 

wow! Searched a lot online, never came across this site. Thanks a lot

 

Its pretty amazing the amount of information they have. I haven't searched a, US, car yet that they didn't have comprehensive information on. Though, I am sure there may be some.

 

And considering that the site provides all kinds of extremely detailed data with exactly ZERO references as to where that information came from, take it all with a grain of salt. The fact that something is on a website doesn't make it true. You'll be far better off searching period magazine test drives over at Wildaboutcars.com.

 

That’s right! I don’t think my car will go 113 mph as written there :-)
thanks for telling

 

Hi,

My 65 was equipped similar to your, 330 4v st300 and 3.08 gear, would do 100mph, cruised nicely down the freeway at 70-80 pulled a few more rpms than a modern car or truck would.

I would think you could get 120mph if you had a long enough stretch,, not real quick as modern cars are much quicker,, bit the experience in a mid-60's car is much more visuals experience

Regards,

 

I'm not much for the distribution of fake news Joe so, are you suggesting that all the information on that site is suspect?

 

I'm suggesting that I'm always skeptical of third-party data that isn't backed up with at least references to primary sources. I'll believe a magazine test from 1967 that actually ran the car at the track. I'll believe a current website that says they compiled their data from period magazine tests and actually lists them. I'm skeptical of a site that has detailed numbers for every possible drivetrain and model configuration with no references whatsoever to the source of that data. This is Research 101. My suspicion is that they plugged some high level numbers and estimates into a "desktop dyno" style program, in which case you had better put the appropriately-sized error bars on those graphs.

 

Even magazine tests varied because of temp, driver, track condition, finely tuned or bone stock off the showroom floor..I highly doubt a 330 f85 rann14.9’s in stock form. Most 60’s musclecars track tested stock or super tuned ran in the low14’s to low15’s 1/4 mile times.. some exceptions in the 13’s

 

Yep, they said in the text that the numbers were estimates from their simulations:

© automobile-catalog.com ProfessCars™ simulation

 

Motor Trend tested a 1967 Cutlass Supreme 320 HP 330 CID 300 ST 3.08 REAR

0-60 in 11.22 seconds 1/4 mile was 18.16 @ 78.5 MPH eventually attaining 98 MPH at 4000 RPM

http://wildaboutcarsonline.com/membe...omparo_1-4.pdf


Below are simulations via Automobile Catalog, also for same spec 320 HP versions.

1966 F85 0-60 in 7.6 seconds 1/4 mile is 16.0 @ 88 MPH
1967 Supreme 0-60 in 8.1 seconds 1/4 mile 16.2 @ 88 MPH

Simulations sometimes tend to be optimistic, in this case very much so. I have spent plenty of time on the site, their 3sp auto and 3 and 4sp manual simulations for original muscle era are a lot closer to reality. The program they use does not seem to fairly assess the 2 speed autos impact on the drive-train.

 

That MT test was a Turnpike Cruiser with the Bonneville-friendly 2.56 rear end ratio. Changing that ratio changes the ET.

 

As I suspected! Further digging yields this:

https://www.automobile-catalog.com/simulation.php

 

So even with a 3:23 or 3:42 the MT test wouldn’t change more than .5 in et at the very best, puts car at mid 17’s. Which with proper 4 bbl and gears, bit of traction your in the high 16’s. Seems reasonable.

 

They call it a Turnpike Cruiser but the listed specs say 3.08 on the chart, third page bottom.

 

Ok Joe I had to skim article again, I see why they call it Turnpike Cruiser, they are referring to the 1968 models that they compared to the stock 1967 models. As you said a 2.56 and 2.78 are considered economy gears.

 

The package was also called Turnpike Cruiser for the 1967 model year. Note RPO L66 from the 1967 SPECS booklet.

 

Ughh I see and yes the article mentions that the gearing was reduced for 67 also. 7th paragraph first page. Overall specs listed don't indicate that...

So the 66 is a quicker car ? as the Autocat simulation indicates. Autocat also says standard feature gear for 66 320 HP was 3.08 with 2.78 optional when 2 sp.

 

I'll be honest, I don't have the time or desire to read through some third party website and their fantasy drag race simulations. The reality is that the L66 motor was 300 HP for 1967 and 290 HP for 1968. Also, the short stroke 65-67 400 is a completely different motor than the long stroke, small bore 68-69 G-block 400.

 

Joe, as I have previously stated, you are a living encyclopedia for all things Oldsmobile....and who knows what else. Your expertise is greatly appreciated by most folks and anything you say gets everyone's attention. I don't know how you cram that much information into a single brain. With that said, the website I posted is very clear in how they arrive at their #'s. Even naming the process and programs, so no deceit or dart throwing there. Algorithms, predictions and projections, best case scenarios are common in the world today. Again, they make no claims that their "Speed" results are gospel. Even manufacture's own information is / was often fabricated to appease the market, the government, insurance companies, etc. you need only research the history of the '70s automotive world to discover that. But, your point is well taken.

However, your comments dispel an entire website. Your position implies that without sourced confirmation you suspect their wheel sizing, overall dimensions, engine to transmission marriage / offerings for the different models...are all unqualified / discounted. For many, these things are important, as well. I have not seen another site that compiles this much comprehensive information in one house.

Ultimately though, it is everyone's personal responsibility to believe sources of information, or not. So, again, your point(s) are well taken.

Be safe out there.





.

 

My intent was simply to point out that one needs to be skeptical of information from any source that is not backed up with references to source material. That applies to college term papers, medical studies, and proclamations from politicians as well as automotive websites.

"Trust but verify".

And you really don't want to get me started about the correctness of the responses to technical questions on the Oldsmobile groups on Facebook...

 

Concur.

 

The wrong data is more dangerous than no data. Joe's an engineer, as am I, and while this is heavily an engineering mindset, it's really science. So many things these days, people form an opinion, then go hunting for the data that supports it. The TV show Mythbusters was notorious for doing this. I like the old TV show The Dukes of Hazzard, it was fun, appealed to my values, and Catherine Bach was hot. All the General Lees were heavily damaged during the jumps, but many could and did drive away. Mythbusters did a show on whether or not a car would survive, did ONE jump, and the car landed on its nose. Thus, they ruled it was impossible for a car to survive that. Had they done enough research, they would have realized that every General had 200 lbs of plate in the trunk to fly straight and not nose down. Instead, they ruled it impossible because they were lazy/ignorant and they wanted to discredit the old show.

You have to let the data drive you. Would I prefer that a 67 442 th400 3.08 car be faster than a 68 of the same since I own one? Sure! But, I'm not going to hunt for some simulator to tell me what I want; I'm going to find reputable sources and learn what actually is. Any technical fellow is a skeptic until things are proven to a standard, and simulations are useful, but don't make it. So, yes, the entire site is probably bullshit. Most sites on the internet are such. I myself have owned sites that are such.

 

As a trained and retired biochemical genetics engineer you don't trust any publication which has not been peer-reviewed by a scientific authority (the same holds true for any scientific discipline) replete w/ citations/references of experimental protocols/experiments substantiating the results/claims. Yet, that's far from the norm regarding Internet forums and (unfortunately) what has become the standard of the Internet these days. As others have stated, don't trust anything on the Internet unless it's backed up with clear discernible references/citations lending credence to the information/claims provided.

 

And I'll add that even IF that website has a valid performance model and inputs good data, without verification of the results through actual testing, the computer model is suspect. We have this all the time in aerospace. CFD models or structural models ALWAYS need to be validated with testing of real hardware. There are many documented flight failures where that was not done and the engineers relied on the computer model only.

 

First thing I did for my thesis, after making an FEA model, was to prove it to existing data. That and the background was half the paper. Then I got nuts on models.

 

You are correct sir. There is a reason why I don't have a presence on Book Face.

 

My apologies gents, the car from that road test was in fact altered to maximize economy and not truly representative of the common model.


1966Oldsmobile the following stats are of a 1964 F-85 Cutlass Holiday for Car Life magazine December 1963

290 HP / 330 CID / 4BBL / ST300 / 3.08 REAR / Test Weight 3705 LBS

0-60 MPH in 9.4 seconds 1/4 mile 16.9 @ 81 MPH eventually attaining a top speed of 111 MPH at 4600 RPM

http://wildaboutcarsonline.com/membe...d_Test_1-7.pdf