In thinking about it further, I think a "Delta 442" or something like it would have been pretty cool. I mean, Chrysler had the 300 all those years, Chevy had the Impala SS, and Ford once made a performance version of the Taurus called the SHO. Why not a full-size, performance-oriented Oldsmobile?

Yes, I know, but before everybody says that, with their Rocket V-8's, EVERY Oldsmobile was performance-oriented, I'm talking about having a little fun. Take, say, a run-of-the-mill '69 Delta 88, put a big stripe down the length of the car, stiffen the springs, change the rear axle ratio, add dual exhausts and a floor-mounted four-speed, put "442" or some other badging on the side, etc.

Oh well...

 

Yeah, something like a W-33...

 

Yeah, but this was offered for what, one model year (1970)? That doesn't compare to the decade of the Chrysler 300 and I don't know how many years of the Impala SS. Even the SHO was offered for several years, if I'm not mistaken, and Pontiac offered its 2+2 for four years in the mid-60s.

 

W29 = 1965-1967, 1972
W30 = Pick a year 1966 - 1980
W31 = 1968 -1970
W32 = 1969
W45 = 1972
W46 = 1969, 1972

There was NO W33 - that was J's point I believe. Similar to the elusive Delta 442

 

These are all A body options, aren't they? I'm talking about the lack of full-size car performance options.

Interesting. Setting the Pace shows such an option available on the '70 Delta 88 and Delta 88 Custom. It was a 390 hp version of the 455.

 

Oh, ok. Then how about W45 Toronado?

You sure? The 390 hp 455 was coded L32.

Still not sure whether the OP is talking about a Delta, a 442, pricing to buy one or shipping. Although our discussions are fun, they may be moot in the overall picture.

 

I have no idea where this data came from, but by your logic, there was never a W-34, either. Didn't we just discuss THAT one in a different thread.

Here's a piece of factory sales literature. Note the top engine option in the lower RH corner of the sheet:



You might want to check out this thread also:

https://classicoldsmobile.com/forums...ta-custom.html

 

I'm not talking about a few options you could check on an order sheet and piece together an Oldsmobile with performance capability. I'm talking about a model line that might be a subset of another line but that was equipped in base configuration as a performance car.

The Pontiac 2+2 was what, a Catalina in disguise? But it got its own model name and came equipped as a performance car as the base model.

The Taurus SHO (Super High Output) was a performance sedan based on the Taurus.

The Delta 88 Custom was a line of Delta 88s with, what, a little more gloss? What would have been fun was a Delta 88 "SS" or Toronado "SS" or something like that that signified to anyone who saw one on the street that they were looking at something with a little more pep.

 

Not so, just your lack of observation - see 2 posts above. And I'm fully aware that there were other Wcars so it has nothing to do with 'my logic'. If you want to look it up check the 442 and W-Machine Restoration Guide (which is only A body) where I saw that. I was simply staying in the 60's and 70's A body with my reply.

I did look at the engine options for Delta 88, Custom and Royale, but apparently the wrong model year (69) where that engine was simply listed as the L32, but not listed as it appears in 1970 as the W33 option for pretty much ALL Deltas that year, not just police packages. I stand corrected.

No idea if THIS just discussed any of this in a different thread either. Probably like you, I don't monitor every single thing on this site.

 

That's the Patrick Sullivan book that shows a picture of a "442 W-31", isn't it? Not sure I'd put a lot of stock in that "restoration guide"...

 

We've run the O.P.'s thread completely off the rails and well into the weeds, so I pulled these posts out of that thread and started a new one for those who wish to continue.

To Allan R: You are correct, I did not read the prior posts carefully enough and confused yours with Jaunty's. Sorry about that, my error.

That doesn't change my opinion of the Sullivan book, however.

 

My take is in 64 but more importantly in 1965 with the "modern rocket 425" Olds had the Jetstar I with the 425. This was Oldsmobiles version of the Pontiac 2+2, Impala SS. Yeah Pontiac promoted their big car's performance capability and there were more performance options for the Poncho. Guess Olds figured the 442 was where it was at for performance and after 66 Dropped their big Luxury performance car with the Sfire. Dont forget Olds had the Toro which had luxury and performance options with the GT or W options.

 

Jaunty, I agree, Ford had the Galaxy, there were umpteen Mopar, Pontiac, Buick and Chevy offerings hell even AMC had one, but for some reason outside of the Toranado Olds left the big cars alone. Really don't know why.

 

I've never met a book that didn't have at least one error in it and the pic you described is there on page 104 (along with absolutely horribly 442 placement BTW), but they do follow up on the next page by saying that the W31 looks very similar to the W30 in appearance with the exception of having only Cutlass badging with the W31 emblem. I think there's more good info in that book than not however. Even the Oldsmobile CSM's have the occasional oops and contradictions in them, and they were supposed to be the 'bible' of these cars, right?

Anyway, not much worth losing sleep over.

The only other thing I can suggest to Jaunty is for the 'performance' looking big car Olds, how about the Delta Hurst Olds Pace cars?
Samples:

 

A W-34 is a Toronado, 1970.

 

Joe pretty well sums it up here. Olds never made it into the full size performance care market in the '60s. Olds pointed themselves in that direction in '64, making 4-speeds available, and with the new 425s in '65, they had the engine to go after it. But the GTO changed the direction of high performance cars and took the focus away from the big cars. It was pretty clear that Olds retreated from big body performance cars. Contrast to Pontiac who came on strong with the big cars in the early '60s and kept on going through the '60s.
Sure there were higher performance versions of big Olds cars, but Olds was definitely not in that market.

 

Olds chose the "W" code to use for some, but not all performance options. And not all "W" options are performance option. And as is with RPO codes, the same code does not mean the same thing every year.
Officially there only 3 "WMachines" that Olds identified: The '68-'72 W30, W31, and W32 ('69 only).
Any other reference to "WMachines" was and is unofficial. W40 and W41 can be added to that list too.
If one wants to loosely refer to WMachines (as I like to do), 1970 had the most with the W30, W31, W32, W33, W34, and W45.

And for the record, the 1970 W33 was an engine option that was essentially the same as the '68 and '69 L32 455.

 

I think your examples needs refinement.

The 300 "Letter Series" (1955-65) was a performance car, but the Chrysler 300 (1962-71) was not.

The Impala SS was a buckets-and-console package or model which most of the time had tepid motors. The SS 427 (1967-69) had more suds standard.

The Taurus SHO was a mid-sized car in the proper context, but it also was our bread and butter, so maybe it fits, maybe it doesn't.

I am going to guess these were the cars that you intended:

SS 427
300 Letter Series
Pontiac 2+2 (1965-67; the '64 was like the Impala SS)
1970 Sport Fury GT

There are other cars, like the Ford Galaxie XL-GT and Mercury Marauder X-100, that had low-po motors standard but often came with 429s. Ford never really had a big performance car as a model beforehand, per your criteria, unless you consider the 7-Litre and Marauder S-55 performance models (hell, why not?).

I think it could be claimed the Starfire and Jetstar I are in a similar vein, but more like the 300 Letter Series than the 2+2.

I've probably mixed things up and added nothing to the mix.

 

Olds and Buick had V8s pretty early, and when it came time to go racing in the late 50s and early 60s, the other brands had newer engines to do it. 409s, FEs, 413s etc. Not to say that Olds engines were not competitive, they won in gasser and digger classes (Stone Woods and Cook ring a bell?), but their whole package at the time wasnt geared for the strip or performance. Bloated chrome laden cars were coming from Lansing and Olds was making money on each one. Same cars were coming out of Flint.

 

The Starfire thru 1966 would definitely be a full size contender for performance, big block/4 speed options (at least for 65/66).....

 

Ding Ding Ding...

The Starfire was absolutely Oldsmobile's full size performance car.

And Kurt, I would argue that the 1970 W-machines folder pretty clearly shows the W-33 and W-34 as performance models (admittedly in a footnote) alongside the A-body W-cars.

 

I overlooked this. I apologize. But Olds gave it up after '66! Too bad. Then they attached that hallowed name to a mid-70s abomination. You want to market a Chevy Monza look-alike? Fine. Just call it something else!

 

I think Olds was the first GM division to realize that hipo big cars were sales losers once the A bodies took over. They always had more emphasis on luxury in the Starfire than the Chev and Pontiac models and I'm sure they sold a lot more 98s than Starfires from 61 to 66. Not that I don't wish that was not the case, I do love the maxed out big cars!

 

This isn't really a fair comparison. The Starfire wasn't even its own model line in 1961. For '62 through '66 it was offered as a convertible and a coupe or just a coupe while the 98 was offered in the full range of body styles.

Olds sold more 98's than it did Cutlasses, too, in some years, so does that mean they should have gotten rid of the Cutlass?

The Starfire was a niche vehicle while the 98 was practically Oldsmobile's bread and butter. But Olds was large enough and GM was large enough that having a presence in most market segments, including the full-size performance segment, was something they could afford to do.

 

To boot, the Starfire was pretty much a personal luxury vehicle in the spirit of the Grand Prix. It's more like an athlete in a tuxedo than a bread-and-butter full-sizer.

 

I have to agree with this. eg: the W35 rear deck option is mostly for appearance, but the W25 hood was both for performance *channelling air under the hood* and aesthetics. W39 was deluxe seatbelts in 68/69. Not sure if they became standard items after that.

I can go for that.

That's where I got confused in the first place. Curious why it was listed as such in 70 but not 68/69? Marketing? W appeal?

 

I like this analogy.

 

Well, we're certainly focused down to the point where we're splitting hairs. Yes, the W33 and W34 were more like an honorable mention. I'm sure the W45 would have been included too, but it came to the party too late in the '70 model year to be included in the early brochures and the Dealer Showroom album.
To continue the hair-splitting, the W33 and W34 were also without any W decals or ornamentation too.
In earlier years, Olds also had "Sports Models" brochures which included Starfire, Jetstar 1, and Toronado. But GM's definition of "Sports" did not require a big engine as evidenced in F85 V6 Sports Coupes in the brochures. And originally, the Chevy SS package had nothing to do with the engine.
So there were definitely evolutionary things going on.
(Not that I'm telling Joe anything he doesn't already know)

 

Nice analogy, BUT, Is there anything really wrong with that.... I don't mind covering up what I got.... Especially having others wondering what is lurking under that Tux... Sort of like hiding a bottle of Nitrous under the trunk lid............

 

Oldsmobile had a different market in mind, there was a customer base that GM basically marketed towards based on age, income bracket, and lifestyle.

 

Unfortunately, I can't take credit for it. I believe I read it once to describe the Riviera. That being said, I think the description fits a number of personal luxury cars . . . but not the Thunderbird, which seemed to be a bit more luxurious and/or less sporting.

The Buick Wildcat first started out in a similar vein, but then became Buick's mid-level model.

 

Exactly, with regard to their full size cars. They could have made full size radical performance cars but they chose not to because of this customer base. I also wonder if there was pressure from Chevy and Pontiac to keep them out of the full size hipo market when it was still selling well...

 

The type of thing I was originally talking about when I started this thread.





http://www.leftlanenews.com/chevrolet-ss.html

 

I like a lot of things about that car, but I wish the exterior had a bit more of a presence to it. It doesn't seem to stand out more than a lot of others on the road. The interior styling stands out though.

Just my opinion. It seems most new cars all look alike.

 

This has been true for 20+ years. If I had a nickel for every time my wife told me she went to the wrong car in the parking lot because our little white sedan looks like every other little white sedan, I'd be wealthy.

 

 

Olds touted the Starfire and Jetsar 1 as performance cars. They sold poorly. The Toronado is blamed for killing them off. Starfires and Jetstar 1 could be ordered with 4 speeds.

 

That's news to me that the Starfire sold poorly. It served its purpose to good effect until the advent of the Toronado.

 

Yes and no.

I agree with Diego in that I would not characterize sales of the Starfire and Jetstar 1 as poor, at least not in the earlier years. On the other hand, sales of the Starfire were best its first year and then decreased every year that followed. Ditto for the two years of the Jetstar I

For '61, the Starfire was not its own model line, but rather was an option package on the Super 88 convertible. Production was 7,600.

For '62, the first year of a full-fledged Starfire line, production was healthy at 34,839 coupes and 7,149 convertibles for a total of 41,988.

For '63, Starfire coupes dropped by 40% to 21,148 while convertibles dropped by about the same percentage to 4,267 for a total of 25,415.

For '64, things get a bit more complicated as the Jetstar I was now available. Production of the Starfires continued to drop to 13,753 coupes, a 35% drop from 1963 and a 60% drop from 1962. Convertible production fell significantly, too, to 2,410, a 44% drop from '63 and a 67% drop from '62. Total Starfire production was 16,163.

But the '64 Jetstar I saw a reasonably healthy 16,084 produced. That brings total '64 full-size performance car (Starfire plus Jetstar I) production to 32,247, a number that beat 1963.


For '65, interestingly, Jetstar I production fell significantly to 6,552, a 60% drop from '64 and probably a big disappointment to Oldsmobile that, not surprisingly, led to the decision to eliminate it after this year. Starfire production, though, held pretty steady compared to 1964 at 13,024 coupes, a drop of only about 5%, and 2,236 convertibles, which was about a 7% drop from '64. Total Starfire production was thus 15,260 while total full-size performance production was 21,812, a drop of 33% from 1964 due almost entirely to the fall-off in Jetstar I production.

For '66, all that was left was the Starfire coupe, and production totaled 16,019, which actually beat total '65 Starfire production.

But '66 was also the first year of the Toronado, and total Toronado production was 40,963. It's probably reasonable to assume that the Toro stole some sales from the Starfire.



I don't think, though, that it's fair to consider the Toronado as "replacing" the Starfire as a performance car. The Toronado was more of a "personal luxury car," especially in the generations that followed in the '70s and early '80s, along the lines of the Buick Riviera. At least, that's how it always came across to me.