What I say is this. After it's all said and done. A 442 is a symbol of what olds accomplished with style, handling and performance. Back in 1968 with the help of George Hurst olds was able to install a 455 into there 1968 and 1969 base model 442 and call it a Hurst olds. It had style, performance and handling. It was fun to drive. You can throw qtr mile times. Engine facts and figures. But the hard core truth is the front wheel drive 442 was really nothing special. It used a cooperate 4 cyl used by poncho, and olds. They were not fun to drive. they had to wound up like a rubber band In my personal opinion they were not what the engineers of the 442 had in mind for the future. Even as lame as the 75 442 was with single exhaust it still offered a 455 right up to 1976 than came with a 350,or 403. funny a 3.8l and a 260 were base engines. Any thing else was a option. But the car still had handling, looked good and had distinct look. I just feel the 442 got robbed in the front wheel drive line up. ron
rodney fama OCA #033098 1969 cutlass s 1969 442 north carolinia car 1969 442 cali car. assembly required stay away from www.calicars.cc what a hassle. 1972 cutlass convertable 1976 phx y-76 arizona regional car. assy. required 1977 cutlass supreme (3) 1986 honda shadow vt 1100c cruiser 1987 cutlass supreme 1989 chevy k-2500 4*4 pick up 1991 yamaha warrior atv 1994 chevy caprice 9c-1 police pkg 732-986-6388 cell 732-254-9500 wk 2 pm best time to call week days web site. shows disc brake conversion using 79 trans am rear disc on my 77 cutlass,and my 77 restoration project, along with other toys http://home.comcast.net/~77w30442/wsb/html/view.cgi-contact.html-.html http://home.comcast.net/~77w30442/wsb/html/view.cgi-photos.html-MerchantID-2 21197-Publish-t-makestatic-true-skip-45.html you may have to copy and paste the address to web browser. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 8:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: 442 Achieva I think we were discussing what performance numbers qualify as a "muscle car". Maybe you want to require it be easily modified to be much faster than stock? Or something else? As for my choices, there are no 4 or 6 cylinder cars here, nor any sideways mounted engines, or any McPherson struts on the lot. Every car has a 400/425 trans, and between 350 and 500 inches of Olds or Cadillac engine. How about you? Bruce Roe 3 Jun 2006 "77w30" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Okay you feel that 4 cyl hunk of junk is comparable to a 442. how > about I > swap you the front wheel hunk of junk we have at the shop for a > nice 69 > 442. > Since it ranks right up there. > Just think how cool it would look with 60 series tires in the rear > and 50's > up front for traction. > The noise the of the timeing chain guids rattling after 80,000 > miles. And > the 1-1/8 split in the rear for that fake dual exhaust look while > it idles > so rough do being worn out. Where my 442 idled rough do to the cam > choice. > Lets not forget the oil it burns do to clogged pcv system. > At changing the starter is not a problem due to exhaust .the intake > is just > in the way. Lol > But it's a 442 > ron > > > > > > rodney fama OCA #033098 > 1969 cutlass s > 1969 442 north carolinia car > 1969 442 cali car. assembly required stay away from www.calicars.cc > what a > hassle. > 1972 cutlass convertable > 1976 phx y-76 arizona regional car. assy. required > 1977 cutlass supreme (3) > 1986 honda shadow vt 1100c cruiser > 1987 cutlass supreme > 1989 chevy k-2500 4*4 pick up > 1991 yamaha warrior atv > 1994 chevy caprice 9c-1 police pkg > 732-986-6388 cell > 732-254-9500 wk 2 pm best time to call week days > web site. shows disc brake conversion using 79 trans am rear disc on > my 77 > cutlass,and my 77 restoration project, along with other toys > > http://home.comcast.net/~77w30442/wsb/html/view.cgi-contact.html-.html > > http://home.comcast.net/~77w30442/wsb/html/view.cgi-photos.html-MerchantI D-2 > 21197-Publish-t-makestatic-true-skip-45.html > > you may have to copy and paste the address to web browser. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 2:13 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: 442 Achieva > > That car was advertised to do 0-60 in 7.5 sec, if I remember > correctly. I define "muscle car" as 0-60 in under 8 sec. Or, > 1/4 mile in under 16 sec. The original 330cu 442 was I > believe 8.2 sec in stock form. > > While that seemed fast in 1960 or in the 80s, some may > choose other numbers considering the latest stuff. Still, > despite the large selection of vehicle models in theory > surpassing that perfomance, only a small percentage of > those actually on the road can do so. > > Bruce Roe > > 3 Jun 2006 Joe Vahabzadeh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > At 10:57 PM 6/1/06 -0400, ron wrote: > > >I may be wrong about the achievia, but they did make a front > wheel > > drive > > >442 with a quad 4. and although it may have sounded mean. > > >It was in no respect a muscle car > > > > Late 80s or early 90s Calais, if I recall right. Given the the > car > > weighed > > only like 2700 or 2800 lbs, and the fact that it produced > something > > like > > 180 (I think) horsepower, I'm sure it could move. > > > > Of course, that was with (then) exotic technology on a 4 cylinder, > > > high > > compression (10:1), and you had to spin the snot out of it. I > think > > peak > > horsepower was at or just above 6000 rpm. Torque, as you might > > guess, was > > a bit shy, but then again, it wasn't a heavy car. > > > > I dunno, though. Would it qualify as a musclecar? What would > make > > it > > qualify, what wouldn't? > > > > - Joe Vahabzadeh > > > >
