Jump to content
Server Move In Progress - Read More ×
Create New...

442 Road Test


Recommended Posts

That's when CARS were cars and MEN were MEN.

Notice the lack of a rollcage in that car as it

drifts, power-slides, pulls J-turns, acceleration &

70-0mph brake trials. People were allowed to

exercise personal responsibility & free will back

then.

Oh and... I thought muscle cars don't handle!? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Olds Rocket V8 fights pollution!? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htLIyzrAbx0

What a thrill to take the wheel

Of a Rocket Oldsmobile

In performance it's the star

It's a rocket engined car

Hydramatic drive is new

Futaramic styling too

With the rocket engine & whirl-away

It's a driver's dream come true!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn- that was a treat! Just the whole demeanor of the review was a blast of fresh air vs. today's automotive 'journalistic' entertainment.

>>"I thought muscle cars don't handle!?"<< I heard that too- must be CGI in that '72 road test... because it cornered pretty damned flat!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Breathtaking....God I miss Oldsmobile :angry:

My sentiments exactly. I was ready to be a life-long Olds fanatic, and then after I got my license, they started killing off the brand. It broke me. It's why I'm a Buick fan now, but it still doesn't equate to my olds love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a Cutlass when I was dating my wife, over 20 years ago. I still iss that car.

And god, the convertible 442 in the road test was a 4 Speed! WOW!

I'm not going to sleep tonight thinking about that car...the likes of which we will never see built here again, sadly.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
its a 3600 pound brute but it handles like a lightweight... in todays terms it is a lightweight.

Indeed, most Cutlasses were great handling cars. Mine is just a run of the mill Supreme and the power steering still feels refreshingly light and decently weighted for a car of its vintage. And another thing that I found surprising after getting mine was that the interior feels much more compact than the exterior suggests.

Edited by YellowJacket894
Link to comment
Share on other sites

my dad is still working on his 70 supreme... but with a 455 going in it. it's the gold color too, very rare....and not a convertible.

My Supreme used to be Saturn Gold Metallic at one time as well, as proven by removing the a-pillar interior panels when those were taken out to be cleaned and repainted recently. I am seriously contemplating returning it back to the factory color.

Is your dad's '70 a notchback coupe like mine or a fastback?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Supreme used to be Saturn Gold Metallic at one time as well, as proven by removing the a-pillar interior panels when those were taken out to be cleaned and repainted recently. I am seriously contemplating returning it back to the factory color.

Is your dad's '70 a notchback coupe like mine or a fastback?

um....notchback. just needs a motor, rear glass, exhaust..hm...not sure what else. next time he pulls it out i'll get a pic of it or steal a pic from my parents' pc.

his color...the mixed color is called autumn gold, not sure if that's the original name though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

um....notchback. just needs a motor, rear glass, exhaust..hm...not sure what else. next time he pulls it out i'll get a pic of it or steal a pic from my parents' pc.

his color...the mixed color is called autumn gold, not sure if that's the original name though.

I don't think that's the color's original name either, in fact I'm fairly certain Olds didn't have an Autumn Gold color option for 1970.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've read the plaque wrong. Instead of reading "53 53" which would denote Saturn Gold Metallic without a vinyl top, it reads "57 57" which actually denotes Baroque Gold Metallic without a vinyl top. (Hey, the numbers are sort of worn off and I was trying to first read them at 11 pm at night, so ...)

However the gold color that is on the inner fenders where the black top coat of paint is chipping away and beneath the a-pillar interior trim appears to be much more closer to Saturn Gold than Baroque Gold. Perhaps Baroque Gold looks lighter in person than it does in the color chip? :scratchchin:

Edited by YellowJacket894
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The colro chips themselves were not exact, and online you are looking at a scan of it.

I have the '59 Buick paint chip sheet, and I sent a scan to a website that is still using it, and the scan & the actual are close, but notably different.

There is no "Saturn Gold" listed for '70 tho- 53 is Nugget Gold.

It wasn't until '71 that 53 was called Saturn Gold.

My brother's '71 Goat is Code 53 - Quezal Gold Poly.

Chevy, Pontiac, Olds & Buick mostly shared color palettes- same paint codes = same paint formulas, but with different names... tho each division did have a few unique colors. Cadillacs always had completely unique palettes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man I just watched that video (original post in this thread) again and it reminded

me why modern cars suck. One drive in that awesome 442 by the biggest bitter

skeptic who is obsessed with modern $hit-boxes and they'd be scouring the local

classic cars for sale magazines. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Man I just watched that video (original post in this thread) again and it reminded

me why modern cars suck. One drive in that awesome 442 by the biggest bitter

skeptic who is obsessed with modern $hit-boxes and they'd be scouring the local

classic cars for sale magazines. :P

Have to disagree with you a bit. I owned a 69 4-4-2 brand new. Bought it right after I graduated from college. Loved that car for its quickness and handling at the time. Fast forward 40 years, and, now, I own a 4 door sedan that will accelerate as fast as the 4-4-2 did, easily out corner it, and has more top end. Over the years I owned 4 Oldsmobiles - besides the 4-4-2, there was a 73 Cutlass 350, a 75 231 V6 Starfire, and a 78 403 Custom Cruiser. Yeah, I like to look at them at car shows, but, just don't have the itch to own one anymore.

Regards:

Oldengineer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...

I love the 442 and have a real fondness for 78-88 G-body Cutlass cars. There is a real nice clean 87 blue on gray 442 for sale about an hour away from me with 72K original miles that I would die to get my hands on. This car excites me more than 98% of the blandmobiles on the road today. It has the 180 HP 4 BBL 307 HO engine, dual exhaust, 3.73 rear with limited slip, rallye guages, bucket seats, larger 215/65R15 RWL tires, Olds gold tinted super stock wheels and a healty dose of personality. The owner, who is a super cool fellow Olds enthusiast, let me take it for a test drive last September. It was easily the most solid G-body car I have ever driven. It sat up nice and firm, rode and handled curves with ease and that nice burbly 307 has very strong low end grunt and only petered out at high speeds well above the limit. It would sure make a fun Summer ride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what you mean. I once owned a 69 4-4-2. My son currently has a restored 68 Cutlass convertible. Under its hood, the 350 deuce and 2 spped automatic are long gone. In its place is a well massaged Olds 425 big block coupled to a built THM 400. He's beefed the suspension, rear end (positraction), added disc brakes, and reinforced the chassis to handle the power this monster developes. The thing accelerates like its shot out of a cannon, and, is way quicker than my 4-4-2 ever was.

Regards:

Oldengineer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And in as much as performance-minded owners 'mod' modern cars to make them better; there's no reason (beyond money) that a classic musclecar cannot EASILY be moded to brake, handle & accelerated much better than it did in factory spec. Sometimes people dismiss vintage muscle because a stock 4bbl is slower in the quarter than some modern 'equivalent', but who exactly mandates you never touch that vintage muscle?? Not to mention the aftermarket for them is world's larger than the aftermarket for modern performance cars. I read an article on a '65 GTO that was pulling down 1.0+ Gs in lateral accel- that's supercar/exotic territory.

Mod the vintage iron, out-perform all factory modern cars, and get a well-built & appreciating classic that's unique and admired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search

Change privacy settings