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.
"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.
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?
This is slightly different, but back in high school I had a 1970 Supreme and ran against a friend's 1971 Supreme (both 350-4bbl, auto, 2.56 rear). I really thought my 10.25:1 compression 310 HP car would decimate his 8.5:1 compression 200 HP car, but they were dead even until the top of 1st gear when I started pulling slightly ahead. That was an ego check for me. 1971 was rated both GROSS and NET: 200 and 260. Both of those engines were essentially the same except for the compression difference, and I didn't see any way that less than 2 points of compression could make 50 HP difference. I eventually became aware of the difference in rating methods and it all made sense.
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.
I guess that's why Rocket Racing used a 455 platform for there engine instead of the 1966. Because like I said Ci is king. I don't care what that rag that Joe posted says. The 66 was a year that next to no restrictions. To compare that to other years is for old men and boys that are hung up on B's. Apple to oranges.
I really wish the Pure Stock Drags had a class for cars that are 100% original, stock, and never taken apart. Not sure however how many guys out there are willing to risk blowing up their pristine, original, low milage muscle cars, but it would be much more representitive of the actual times people were getting back in the day. I have a friend in NJ with a Grotto Blue L78/M22/3:73 Chevelle with 36K miles on it. It's as original (except tires + battery) and pristine as the day he ordered it new. I told him years ago the day he dies and leaves me the car (lol) I'm taking it to Atco on test-n-tune night. It would be fun to see original bone-stock muscle cars go at it again.
I guess that's why Rocket Racing used a 455 platform for there engine instead of the 1966. Because like I said Ci is king. I don't care what that rag that Joe posted says. The 66 was a year that next to no restrictions. To compare that to other years is for old men and boys that are hung up on B's. Apple to oranges.
You are one weird dude. you Just can’t accept the 66 W30 was a killer car right off the showroom floor.
whats hung up on the B’s mean? I’m not up on the expert lingo
If that's your Olds than answer one question. Why do you talk so much ****?? You make yourself look like an ***...
Pick your flavor and have a great 2022.
I am sure your amazon account has it already
I can tell you’re just a big blowhard…the other clown is just as bad.
Go back and read your own posts about you street racing and beating everything in site,,that’s a lot of talk. To bad we can’t fact check your talk huh?
And the other buffoon with his off the wall comments about it not being equal or whatever to compare Olds performance cars to each other.. now that’s just stooopid.
these are old original tests done back in the day , actual tests. Magazine write ups with good details considering it was 50 plus years ago. Saying it’s all a bunch of crap or not worth even comparing makes no sense
anyone with any track experience can look at those numbers, see whats good or not so good and what can be blamed on tires or the driver.
I really wish the Pure Stock Drags had a class for cars that are 100% original, stock, and never taken apart. Not sure however how many guys out there are willing to risk blowing up their pristine, original, low milage muscle cars, but it would be much more representitive of the actual times people were getting back in the day. I have a friend in NJ with a Grotto Blue L78/M22/3:73 Chevelle with 36K miles on it. It's as original (except tires + battery) and pristine as the day he ordered it new. I told him years ago the day he dies and leaves me the car (lol) I'm taking it to Atco on test-n-tune night. It would be fun to see original bone-stock muscle cars go at it again.
If you walk through the lanes and talk to the owners, you'll find some original cars that run there. There are some cars that have been overhauled with minimal upgrades (maintained standard bore, etc...). We ran a friend's original 18k mile AMC SC/rambler for a couple years, and decided we didn't want to drive over the crank and wreck the car, so that was the end of that. It was running around 14.3-14.5 at 91-92 mph. Not much of an adrenaline rush. I definitely respect the guys that do it though.
Curt and I talked with Jeff Krieger, original owner of 1966 #24, at the OCA Nationals in Denver in 2001. He said the car, completely stock, ran 13.30s.
Remember that at NHRA stock class races in 1970, the W31s ran as quick as the W30, despite giving up 105 cubic inches.
Just to have some fun, here is a quote from Oldsmobile back in 65. Oldsmobile boasted in a 1965 press release that “a Jetstar I proved to be the top accelerator of the entire event” at the 1965 Pure Oil Performance Trials in Daytona Beach. Those trials were sanctioned and supervised by NASCAR. Now I know everyone here is talking 1/4 mile type stuff, but here is a statement from another viewpoint and how things were measured back in the 60's.
Anyone remember the Mobil Economy Run? It was an annual event that took place from 1936 to 1968, except during World War II. It was designed to provide real fuel efficiency numbers during a coast-to-coast test on public roads and with regular traffic and weather conditions. The Mobil Oil Corporation sponsored it and the United States Auto Club (USAC) sanctioned and operated the run.
Like I said earlier, just having some fun. History is actually fun!
If you walk through the lanes and talk to the owners, you'll find some original cars that run there. There are some cars that have been overhauled with minimal upgrades (maintained standard bore, etc...). We ran a friend's original 18k mile AMC SC/rambler for a couple years, and decided we didn't want to drive over the crank and wreck the car, so that was the end of that. It was running around 14.3-14.5 at 91-92 mph. Not much of an adrenaline rush. I definitely respect the guys that do it though.
December 31st, 2021, 09:30 AM
