1983 Oldsmobile 442 Coupe

73SC wrote:

---

That car is very nice I will say.

I was in the market for a new car back then and I did settle on the Monte Carlo SS. The olds 307 and wacky shifters was sevral steps behind the SS in perfomance and 5 miles behind the Grand National. 

---

Ya gotta wonder what they were thinking when they went with the 307? Why not the covette 350 of the era in this and the Monte Carlo. Would have made for alot more fun! 

Regarding what LeeRoy asked about engines. There was a lot of internal politics in GM even then on branding and even though we were into Corporate engines the Olds team wanted an Olds engine. The 307 was never up to the L69 HO 305 which was basically a Corvette engine with 45 less cubes and the Turbo Buick V6. There was still a pecking order too in terms of the perfomance cars Corvette at top, F Bodies then G bodies. 

The Monte SS got the L69 before the F bodies but it was never rated at the level in the F body. The same holds true for the Buick Turbo V6, it was never rated above the Corvette V8 even though we all know that with the GNX doing 0-60 in under 5 seconds it had to be putting out over 300 HP.

73SC wrote:

---

Regarding what LeeRoy asked about engines. There was a lot of internal politics in GM even then on branding and even though we were into Corporate engines the Olds team wanted an Olds engine. The 307 was never up to the L69 HO 305 which was basically a Corvette engine with 45 less cubes and the Turbo Buick V6. There was still a pecking order too in terms of the perfomance cars Corvette at top, F Bodies then G bodies. 

The Monte SS got the L69 before the F bodies but it was never rated at the level in the F body. The same holds true for the Buick Turbo V6, it was never rated above the Corvette V8 even though we all know that with the GNX doing 0-60 in under 5 seconds it had to be putting out over 300 HP.

---

This is a review from 1985. The L69 5.0 litre engine in the SS was named by Hot Rod magazine as one of the top ten Chevrolet performance engines of all time along with the L79, LT1, Z/28 302 to name a few. Describing this engine as lethargic is uneducated. The 442 was two second slower than the SS and GN. The SS was merely fractions slower than the GN. 

http://www.caranddriver.com/content/download/107226/1454329/version/1/file/Modern+Muscle+%28Jul+%2785%29.pdf

73SC wrote:

---

This is a review from 1985. The L69 5.0 litre engine in the SS was named by Hot Rod magazine as one of the top ten Chevrolet performance engines of all time along with the L79, LT1, Z/28 302 to name a few. Describing this engine as lethargic is uneducated. The 442 was two second slower than the SS and GN. The SS was merely fractions slower than the GN. 

http://www.caranddriver.com/content/download/107226/1454329/version/1/file/Modern+Muscle+%28Jul+%2785%29.pdf

-- Edited by 73SC on Saturday 24th of December 2011 11:12:34 PM

---

 Ray, the 442 in that issue ran 16.6. the SS ran 15.9 and the GN ran 15.7. They were all within .9 of each other.

And with that said, a 15.7 out of a Grand National is a joke. I have no idea how they ran such an awful time on that test. 

I owned what I felt was likely one of the slowest GN's I ever heard of. I had a 1/4 mile timer permanently installed in it. Stone stock it would run 14.7 to 14.9 all day long, any time.

I dug out some old road tests for SS and GN.This is all I could find in my magazines but I know there was lots more.

SS---

15.90 @ 86 mph  Car and Driver  July 85

15.39 @ 88 mph Super Chevy Mar 86

16.44 @ 87 mph Musclecar Review June 88

GN---

15.70 @ 87 mph  Car and Driver July 85

14.20 Musclecar Review April 87

These cars were among  the performance leaders of the time - and the GN was a standout - but honestly I never owned or drove a decently performing  305 powered car - including an 87 IROC Z convt which disappointed. Maybe I did not drive the right one ( I did not sample a Monte Carlo SS) but the ones I did definitely turned me off from that engine.

That said, the only 80s GM performance cars I looked at in that era were the MC SS and the GN - they had their appeal. 

I had only one 307 4bbl Olds powered car - a Caprice wagon - that was sluggish but maybe that was owing to the weight of the car. 

Carl Stevenson wrote:

---

 Ray, the 442 in that issue ran 16.6. the SS ran 15.9 and the GN ran 15.7. They were all within .9 of each other.

___________________________________________________

Ya My 12 year old Suburban is a sub 16 second machine so my point is the Olds is not in the same league as the other two. 0-60 it was over 9 second. I suppose the real testament to these perfomance cars is that my new Cadillac DTS is under 15 seconds and under 7 second 0-60.

Goota go and serve dinner to the elderly shut-ins now, Merry Christmas all. 

We agree its a beauty  and a later model collectible   and new at 14000 miles

Will he get 21,500.00 for it ??????

View larger image