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.
This is really neat Phil, thanks! I seem to remember an article, don't know which magazine it was, where they compared the 70 W30 to the 71 W30 to see how much the lower compression hurt the 1/4 mile performance. If I recall, the 2 cars had equal gearing and were either both automatic or manual, i.e. the goal was to make the comparison as equal as possible. Do you recall that article and/or have it?
These road tests and numbers are kind of meaningless. The equipment level on each car tested is all over the map. Gearing? Transmission? With or without A/C? Tires? Driver skill? And I won't even begin to talk about altitude and weather corrections.
Before you guys get all giddy about the 1966 W30 remember weight makes a difference in ET and mph. The 66 is lighter than a 1969/70 .
Isn't that kind of the point? The fully loaded 1970 W30 convertibles with every power option in the book that bring the stupid money at auction are the heaviest, slowest W30s ever made. And don't get me started on the AT cars with the run-of-the-mill 285/287 cam.
These road tests and numbers are kind of meaningless. The equipment level on each car tested is all over the map. Gearing? Transmission? With or without A/C? Tires? Driver skill? And I won't even begin to talk about altitude and weather corrections.
X 2 Exactly correct. Drag strip surfaces are not equal either.
In the May 1970 issue, High Performance Cars tested that yellow 70 with the red stripes. AT, W27 rear, PS, PB, but no A/C. 3.42 gears, stock F70-14 bias ply tires. They ran a best of 14.30 @ 98 MPH.
In the April 1970 issue, Hot Rod tested a 70, also with AT, PS, PB, but iron rear and 3.91 gears, also with F70-14s. First runs were 14.10 @ 100.55 MPH. They later removed the air filter and flapper on the air cleaner and got 13.98 @ 100.78 MPH.
In the March 1970 issue, Car Life tested a 70 with AT, PS, PB, and 3.42 gears and got numbers similar to the HPC test at 14.36 @ 100.22.
I suspect that HRM was the only magazine that actually power-braked the automatic and launched the car properly, and gears definitely matter. It would be nice to have seen a test with an MT car with real gears and without the heavy power equipment, driven by someone who knows what they were doing.
July 69 Car Life tested one with 3.42 gears, no A/C. Letting the trans shift at 5200 they went 14.33 @ 99.22. Using the dual gate and shifting at 5500 they went 14.06 @ 100.55.
June 69 Motor Trend tested one equipped the same and went 13.98 @ 101.28. They noted that the car weighed 3855 lbs and only had 600 miles on it.
Let's compare that to the 1968 H/O
Sept 68 Motor Trend has numbers for both A/C and non-A/C versions.
The A/C version had 3.08 gears and went 14.28 @ 94.36.
The non-A/C version had 3.91 gears and went 13.97 @ 97.30.
The same article also talks about another test car at the press event with milled heads, a "bigger cam", and a steeper rear axle ratio that went 12.61 @ 110.7.
Interestingly, Aug 68 Car Craft had a test car with headers and supposedly 3.91 gears that went 12.97 @ 108.17. This sounds suspiciously like the modified car that MT talked about.
I understand about the variables guys but these tests are all we have to work with...
If I had my druthers I would only quote Car Life magazine. As I feel they were the most sincere and most realistic in this era and provided the all important test weight with almost all of their road test results. Magazines like Hot Rod which Joe P mentions in one post, always seemed to run a little quicker. Maybe from loading up (power braking), 1/4 tank of gas, maybe 1 passenger rather than the usual 2 that Car life would have on board, etc, etc, etc.
True its never ever going to be completely equal from one model to another outside of advertised horsepower rating. But if somebody was to ask me how a specific years model ran I feel the road test results I chose and my deductions are a fair assessment.
I tried my best to avoid ringers, prepped cars, and slightly modded versions.
The 66 definitely came up quickest on my list because of its extraordinarily light weight. Only 1 pound heavier than the 1980 442 at 3310 LBS base curb. I do not believe it was the most powerful as I noted towards the end of my notes. (but its also not far off)
Originally Posted by joe_padavano
The fully loaded 1970 W30 convertibles with every power option in the book that bring the stupid money at auction are the heaviest, slowest W30s ever made.
In my opinion those that go this route like the idea of a muscle era W30 but not the reality... The whole concept of maximum comfort and options works against the cars intended purpose. Which is a high performance beast not a luxury convertible cruiser.
They basically want a Toronado that's rear wheel drive with a performance pedigree they never intended to explore ... Even if purchasing an all out garage queen, you don't even get bragging rights. Great powerful car but not any sort of pinnacle of the W30 line, as its extreme price suggests.
If you want the essence of a W30 its the 66. Its a raw factory performance car with one goal in mind, and that's accelerating very quickly with absolutely no frills. That in itself should get it the highest value but it doesn't ... Its arguably not just the quickest Oldsmobile but one of the quickest muscle cars of all time and the quickest muscle car money could buy in 1966 across all brands. Only the AC Cobra and Corvette both of which are sports cars had quicker models. Add to that how extremely few were actually built and it should be a no brainer. And yes I get it everybody doesn't want a barebones car. And obviously other much more highly equipped models perform close to it. As I've mentioned many times on this website 1966-1972 W30 and 68,69 H/O are all in the same ballpark performance wise ... The 1972 W30 H/O should make the cut also.
In the May 1970 issue, High Performance Cars tested that yellow 70 with the red stripes. AT, W27 rear, PS, PB, but no A/C. 3.42 gears, stock F70-14 bias ply tires. They ran a best of 14.30 @ 98 MPH.
4R5 Joe P just provided some gold above.
Here is High Performance Cars November 1972 test result for the 1972 W30 AT, PS, PB, no A/C. 3.42 gears, G70-14 Tires. 14.37 @ 98 MPH
Even Joe will tell you that's mind bogglingly similar to the 1970 test and the icing on the cake is its done by the same publication.
This tells me that at least when considering these 2 tests the 1970 had no advantage over the low compression 1972. And the 1972 will have absolutely no issues with gas quality. 72s should be worth a ton, I believe only 2 cars tested quicker for that year, the Pontiac 455 HO T/A and the LS5 Corvette 454. I believe the 1972 W30 may be the most underrated peak performer in Olds history. I'm thinking the rest of the Cutlass line getting kicked in the nuts somehow took away from this magnificent beast.
Here is High Performance Cars November 1972 test result for the 1972 W30 AT, PS, PB, no A/C. 3.42 gears, G70-14 Tires. 14.37 @ 98 MPH
Even Joe will tell you that's mind bogglingly similar to the 1970 test and the icing on the cake is its done by the same publication.
This tells me that at least when considering these 2 tests the 1970 had no advantage over the low compression 1972. And the 1972 will have absolutely no issues with gas quality. 72s should be worth a ton, I believe only 2 cars tested quicker for that year, the Pontiac 455 HO T/A and the LS5 Corvette 454. I believe the 1972 W30 may be the most underrated peak performer in Olds history. I'm thinking the rest of the Cutlass line getting kicked in the nuts somehow took away from this magnificent beast.
Why would you say what you said?? You are a trip.
When is last time you even touched a rear barrel?? You aren't even a part of this conversation.
I don't get your aggression here. Go buy a stang if you are such a hater. Seriously. All you do is talk 💩. Have you ever been down a quarter mile track? I just do not get you. For that I am blessed. Add to the site. Just once. I dare you.
Last edited by no1oldsfan; December 30th, 2021 at 05:20 PM.
I grew up on the streets. I Always drove an Oldsmobile. I beat you in everything from my 69 4 barrel Cutlass. My 69 Toronado. My 70 SX. My 70 442 etc etc etc. Nobody expected the jump by an Oldsmobile?? when I was a kid. Guess what? I got that hole shot and you were done. I love Oldsmobile's because I know Oldsmobile's. I know their torque and horsepower.
Early magazine times etc are early magazine times etc. You could line up two identical cars from Any year and guess what? One runs better than another. Pretty much every single time. Fact is an Oldsmobile ran strong. As did a Buick. We got no love in the seventies eighties etc. So many fools got butthurt by an Oldsmobile back in the day.
Why would you say what you said?? You are a trip.
When is last time you even touched a rear barrel?? You aren't even a part of this conversation.
I don't get your aggression here. Go buy a stang if you are such a hater. Seriously. All you do is talk 💩. Have you ever been down a quarter mile track? I just do not get you. For that I am blessed. Add to the site. Just once. I dare you.
take a hike moron
i wasn’t responding to you in that quote. Go back and read the part about being giddy , maybe you’ll understand.. read it slow
Last edited by CANADIANOLDS; December 31st, 2021 at 05:55 AM.
Why would you say what you said?? You are a trip.
When is last time you even touched a rear barrel?? You aren't even a part of this conversation.
I don't get your aggression here. Go buy a stang if you are such a hater. Seriously. All you do is talk 💩. Have you ever been down a quarter mile track? I just do not get you. For that I am blessed. Add to the site. Just once. I dare you.
If you want the essence of a W30 its the 66. Its a raw factory performance car with one goal in mind, and that's accelerating very quickly with absolutely no frills. That in itself should get it the highest value but it doesn't ... Its arguably not just the quickest Oldsmobile but one of the quickest muscle cars of all time and the quickest muscle car money could buy in 1966 across all brands. Only the AC Cobra and Corvette both of which are sports cars had quicker models. ...
For what it is worth, a real world head to head street race story from 66 is in order. (Both of the drivers are now deceased.) My neighbor's aunt bought him a new blue 66 427/425 convertible Vette. We went to a local track, jacked it up in the dirt (the track was really primitive) and installed some recapped cheater slicks. This Vette ran consistently in the lower 12s at 113-114 mph.
Our local service station hangout maintained a 66 track pack 442 that was the local C stock track champion. I watched it run many times in the lower 12s at 112-114 mph. (Later it got into the high 11s) It was such a winner, that for over a year, there was a bounty payable to any C stocker that could beat it.
After a challenge for the best 2 out of 3 runs was made, they were both driven onto a quarter mile marked-off on the then, under construction beltline. The beltline had a cloverleaf entrance almost beside the service station. They were very close in performance. I remember that the first two runs were split between them. I recall it ended up 1 for the Olds and 2 for the Vette. (I will have to check with a friend to verify whether it was the other way around.)
The Olds was a dedicated, C stock class track car that was almost never street driven. The Vette was an A Sports class, street car occasionally track driven.
So we should penalize the 66 W30 with some weight and modify the other car to make them faster?
is that how these factory produced cars should have been tested back then to take the giddiness from the 66 W30?
this is about production cars
It's clear you are not a race car driver. It's clear you know nothing about these cars are unequal period . It is well known cubic inch is king if cars are equal. 1970 has the most cubes . Go wipe your dipstick.
Everyone is obviously feeling festive to ring in the New Year🤔. Great story Tri-Carb and obviously a good Winter thread 69CSHC. Yeah, the magazine times have always been all over the place, depending on many factors. The Street and the Track are two different things, running the 1/8 really opened my eyes. When you dominate both, you have a truly fast car.
Here is High Performance Cars November 1972 test result for the 1972 W30 AT, PS, PB, no A/C. 3.42 gears, G70-14 Tires. 14.37 @ 98 MPH
Even Joe will tell you that's mind bogglingly similar to the 1970 test and the icing on the cake is its done by the same publication.
This tells me that at least when considering these 2 tests the 1970 had no advantage over the low compression 1972. And the 1972 will have absolutely no issues with gas quality. 72s should be worth a ton, I believe only 2 cars tested quicker for that year, the Pontiac 455 HO T/A and the LS5 Corvette 454. I believe the 1972 W30 may be the most underrated peak performer in Olds history. I'm thinking the rest of the Cutlass line getting kicked in the nuts somehow took away from this magnificent beast.
Phil, Joe, Thanks, this is what I remember.
Yes I understand the variation in these tests, but since the same publication did them it takes out some of the variation.
I did not do a thorough comparison, but I believe the only difference in the 2 engines were the pistons. I'm assuming the cars test weights were close. So, how can a lower compression engine make the same net hp as the higher compression engine? Or is most of the loss in low end torque?
It's clear you are not a race car driver. It's clear you know nothing about these cars are unequal period . It is well known cubic inch is king if cars are equal. 1970 has the most cubes . Go wipe your dipstick.
The question wasn't "which engine made the most HP?" The question was "which CAR was the quickest?" That's much more than the engine. It's power to weight. It's the transmission. It's gearing. It's suspension design to maximize launch. Your comment is meaningless. Yeah, if you make a car heavier, it won't be as quick. Duh.
Phil, Joe, Thanks, this is what I remember.
Yes I understand the variation in these tests, but since the same publication did them it takes out some of the variation.
I did not do a thorough comparison, but I believe the only difference in the 2 engines were the pistons. I'm assuming the cars test weights were close. So, how can a lower compression engine make the same net hp as the higher compression engine? Or is most of the loss in low end torque?
I've maintained for a long time that the undervalued 1972 X-code cars were the Olds performance bargain of the last few decades. I fear that the "X-code" feature scheduled for next year's MCACN might put an end to that.
The differences were more than just pistons. Besides the pistons, the 72 had GA heads and a slightly different cam with 286/287 duration and 61 deg overlap vs. the 285/287 with 57 deg overlap in the 1970 AT cars. Of course timing and carb calibrations were also slightly different. At the risk of beating a dead horse, the real message here is how much the 1970 W30 AT motors were down on power as compared to the MT motors that year, despite the mythical identical HP and torque ratings.
The question wasn't "which engine made the most HP?" The question was "which CAR was the quickest?" That's much more than the engine. It's power to weight. It's the transmission. It's gearing. It's suspension design to maximize launch. Your comment is meaningless. Yeah, if you make a car heavier, it won't be as quick. Duh.
All bs Joe!! You couldn't beat a 1970 with a 66 if both have same gears trans weight and factory engines with the 70 having a better cam period. Ci wins every time. I am surprised you even jumped on that band wagon. Racer know Ci is king.
All bs Joe!! You couldn't beat a 1970 with a 66 if both have same gears trans weight and factory engines with the 70 having a better cam period. Ci wins every time. I am surprised you even jumped on that band wagon. Racer know Ci is king.
Real racers know that power-to-weight is king. In a drag race between a 1970 W30 and a 289 Cobra, my money would be on the Ford.
The question wasn't "which engine made the most HP?" The question was "which CAR was the quickest?" That's much more than the engine. It's power to weight. It's the transmission. It's gearing. It's suspension design to maximize launch. Your comment is meaningless. Yeah, if you make a car heavier, it won't be as quick. Duh.
I Am making a real world statement vs a unfair evaluation. The 66 had next to no rules from the factory the 70 had rules to abide by. So not really a comparison.
Real racers know that power-to-weight is king. In a drag race between a 1970 W30 and a 289 Cobra, my money would be on the Ford.
Again you are stirring the posting with B's. I have raced plenty of 289's none of those were stock. coba my AZZ. My 1970 442 is close to factory weight at 3750 cam and carb different gearing is different had 355 and 373 both came close to same Et. Mph was two miles different . Bet that 289 coba is slower.
Real racers know that power-to-weight is king. In a drag race between a 1970 W30 and a 289 Cobra, my money would be on the Ford.
Just how many race track champions have you ever raced Joe and won? My guess none for you. Go ahead put that 289 cobra in your 1970 Oldsmobile then let's race.
"Production cars" is an interesting phrase. The 50 or so 1966 W-30's were considered "production cars" because different sanctioning bodies required a minimum of 50 units produced to be "legal". This was because Chrysler and Ford had 10-15 specially built cars like the SOHC 427 and Chrysler Hemi's. Does the Ford Thunderbolt come to mind ?
The magazine articles was indirect "sales literature". They needed attention getting covers and stories to sell the magazines. They rarely did any head to head tests. Cars were made available to magazine people to generate attention and sales of cars.
Do some math......divide the shipping weight by the horsepower and tell me what the number is. You may also have to check with NHRA to see what they "factored" the horsepower number to. The factory advertised horsepower is just a number. It was rarely accurate.
I find it very hard to believe that a 1966 W-30 could run 13.8 quarter mile times on 7.75-14 tires. To back that up, I had a 1965 442 with 1966 block, L-69 tri-carb, W-30 cam, springs, rockers lashed out to "no clatter", Hooker headers, 4.10 and 4.33 rear gears, 7.75-14 and 8.85-14 tires. It ran low 14.0's with Mickey Thompson cheater slicks. After I bolted on a pair of 9.00-15 Goodyear slicks it dropped to 13.50. Altitude was 900 feet. Yes, I raced it on the street too.
Tires and the correct air pressure can make a huge difference in traction. Traction is a big variable that isn't being measured. These magazine tests are entertainment and the material to make young boys underwear warm and wet. Enjoy the magazine articles, but don't consider them entirely factual or accurate. If you think a 1972 W-30 is as fast as a 1970 W-30, take them out and run them head to head and see the truth.
These threads are always one of the most predictable threads posted. They are all opinions. Everyone has one. I am just glad that I speak from actual experience. I loved how my 455 ran pulled etc. Exactly why they were deemed Muscle Cars.
It's clear you are not a race car driver. It's clear you know nothing about these cars are unequal period . It is well known cubic inch is king if cars are equal. 1970 has the most cubes . Go wipe your dipstick.
Here’s a hint..comparing production cars, wether it’s Olds against Olds or other makes…has nothing to do with making them equal.
It’s comparing their differences. Especially as they came from the factory. This is what’s being shown here in these old tests.
That really rubs you the wrong way for some reason.
December 5th, 2021, 05:04 PM
