|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:47 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:58 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 5:08 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 5:28 pm
DAYUM I want one of those for a road car! The transmission is gonna need to go but it'll definitely turn heads. Especially after the top gets re-done in carbon. pirate
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 12:02 am
Am I the only one who saw that window at 1:15
Is that just reflection, or are the windows down?
are those two seperate pieces of glass? or one super-window on a door that cant open?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 6:24 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:53 am
SublimeJew http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw5Uv8wDMa8 442's = my favorite cars of all time. 13.24 1/4 mile ... and 5.3 0-60 With modern radials your talking in the 12's and 4's STOCK =) not bad for 40 years ago Pretty sure that's only if you had W30 or a Hurst Olds, and that was $$ but even still, the standard model was a fast car. My dad had one when he was in high school. It was worked. I think he's told me it probably ran elevens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 12:43 pm
s i x s p e e d SublimeJew http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw5Uv8wDMa8 442's = my favorite cars of all time. 13.24 1/4 mile ... and 5.3 0-60 With modern radials your talking in the 12's and 4's STOCK =) not bad for 40 years ago Pretty sure that's only if you had W30 or a Hurst Olds, and that was $$ but even still, the standard model was a fast car. My dad had one when he was in high school. It was worked. I think he's told me it probably ran elevens. Yeah, I thought that sounded too fast. That kind of speed was available only with the Hurst Olds. Even the W30 442s, which were extremely rare, achieved 60 mph in 6.0 to 6.5 seconds, and they were running 4.33s. But you must understand what the Hurst Olds was. In contrast to everything else, it was extremely fast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 6:25 pm
I know it was only the H/O option (as per the video), but again... remember that's stock form the factory... still very impressive 40 years later.
I actually think the Gran Sport 455 has it beat ... I have to try to find the video I had on it. (Believe they said it ran 12's stock).
I love the 442's for the amazing all around design. Back then... the "brand" actually mattered, different engines, suspensions, transmissions etc in oldsmobiles then chevy's or buicks etc.
I LOVE the hood scoops in the W30!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:40 pm
SublimeJew I know it was only the H/O option (as per the video), but again... remember that's stock form the factory... still very impressive 40 years later. I actually think the Gran Sport 455 has it beat ... I have to try to find the video I had on it. (Believe they said it ran 12's stock). I love the 442's for the amazing all around design. Back then... the "brand" actually mattered, different engines, suspensions, transmissions etc in oldsmobiles then chevy's or buicks etc. I LOVE the hood scoops in the W30! Spoke with my dad about it and he told me that of all the car's variants, the SS Chevelle with the 454 was probably the fastest. They were all fast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 7:17 pm
I don't know about that... back in the day Chevy was the bottom of the line car, which meant less luxury, lesser motors etc. Not that in any way the SS 454 was slow, but I'd say the 442, GTO or the Stage 1 Gran Sport were all generally better cars, and faster stock.
With that said, they were also the most common, and therefore easiest to buy parts for to modify into a faster car.
Don't mean to argue, especially semantics on 40+ year old cars, just disagree. Funny fact: People actually RETURNED their cars when GM switched to all Chevy Motors and people were buying a Buick, Pontiac, or Oldsmobile. It wasn't like it is nowadays, back then if you had a chevy, your motor, trans, suspension etc were all different then the ones from the Oldsmobile, or the ones from the Buick, or the ones from the Pontiacs.
That's one of the reasons I love all those cars so much. Even though they were all on the same base, they were much different monsters, with different strengths and weaknesses.Plus all of them were amazing vehicles, designed for a simpler purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 12:03 am
Lol.... Flip waiting to happen. I'd enjoy it as a slow-cruiser, but I'd ultimately rework the whole suspension. Good car though, for it's time.
Was it sold or did the luxury version end up being the Mecury Cougar?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 5:59 am
It was sold. It was a good car for its purpose. The suspension being like that made for a much more comfortable ride. On the other end of the scale, it massively hurt performance. Even with that said, the mustang had the suspension out of a falcon and were unibody (which was an oddity back in the day). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9cWS4M7IS8 - Good Impala cinematic video =)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
