Economy-Minded Muscle Cars?! The Pontiac GTO and Oldsmobile 442 with Economy V8 Engines…

[@SPH56]

I had a white with red guts '68 Cutlass 442 with the turnpike cruiser option and the standard 2.56 rear. A beautiful and loaded car. Not quite the stoplight racer by any stretch, but when it came to the open road, passing was a breeze along with being able to crack 100 easily and hold it without fear of running out of steam. Mileage was respectable and durability was just what the "Doctor" ordered.

[@fleetwin1]

Yes, this engine option seems like a great one for someone who wanted one of these muscle cars as a daily driver for sure

[@SpynCycle57]

Back in 1978 I picked up a 1966 GTO with a 326 2-Bbl, frozen motor. Perhaps a previous owner swapped out the motor. I replaced it with a used 400 V8. The nice thing about Pontiac V8 motors is that they were all the same block, no small block big block variants like Chevrolet. Everything bolted right up to it.

[@skinnerhound2660]

My buddy owns the exact 1968 442 in the thumbnail. His father in law owned an Olds dealershio in Indiana and he and his wife were given a new car every few years. He wanted a W-30 but unfortunately was forced to accept a turnpike cruiser. He said it was a good runner but never was quite satisfied with the lower compression two barrel engine. Years later he replaced the engine with a 1970 455 which is a real torque monster and fifty five years later he still has the car. I own a 1970 442 which I love. These cars are special in their own rite and haven't received their due, IMO.

[@weegeemike]

The Olds is often overshadowed by the Chevelle and GTO, probably because they were cheaper and more common. The Olds and Buick variants are my favorites, get the performance of the aforementioned cars with the plush seats and luxury options and overall higher-end feel that defined the Olds and Buick divisions.

[@steventoby3768]

In the summer of 1967, my father took me with him to buy a new car, an Oldsmobile station wagon -- because of my size I needed a roomy back seat. While he was negotiating with the dealer, I couldn't help noticing the 442 on the showroom floor. I sat in the driver's seat and admired the instruments. I decided I should drive one of these when I got old enough to be licensed. Well, by the time I got old enough I was more interested in sports cars and never owned a musclecar, but the Olds station wagon had essentially the turnpike cruiser package described in this video. It was a 330 cubic inch V-8 that ran on regular fuel and produced, if I remember right, about 250 hp. Even my mother, who can hardly be described as a leadfoot, bragged that she was "the first to get started when the light turned green." It was finally retired at 102,000 miles with the engine as good as ever.

[@michaelwitas9482]

One likely reason some manufacturers offered the economy v8 engines was that the insurance companies would charge higher rates on the most powerful engines. I remember reading long ago about this in some old car magazines.

[@genehart261]

I had a '70 Malibu with a 307 v8 and TH350 trans. Great car in all respects.

[@The_R-n-I_Guy]

If the engine internals were the same. But the price was lower. If you were planning to do some performance upgrades anyway. It might be smart to buy the cheapest option since you're swapping out parts anyway. Or if you promised your kid a new GTO, the slower the better 😊

[@dave1956]

Even the 1969-1970 Grand Prix was available with the low compression 400 V8. I remember reading the June, 1969 issue of Consumer Reports magazine and as conservative as they were, they said that it was a strange way to save money.

[@markscungio2996]

The turnpike cruiser was a GREAT COMBO in a station wagon. Dad's Olds wagon had a 455 2bbl with an economy rear axle ratio. Still made a TON of torque to get us moving BRISKLY...but we got 16-17 mpg hwy, which was GOOD for 1970!!

[@rightlanehog3151]

We need more wagons on this channel.

[@SGTJDerek]

Don't forget the T-37. There were all kinds of mix and matched stuff back then. You weren't required to get expensive "packages" if you wanted 1 certain thing. I bought a car in the early 2000's and the Stealership wanted to charge me for the A/C like it was an option to begin with.

[@chilternsroamer872]

Indeed. I heard of a nurse who bought a T-37 new, and years later her daughter (whom I knew) used to borrow it. Looked the part, without the running costs. Was replaced in that family with a 6-cylinder 1987 Bonneville (also bought new).

[@DejaView]

Yes, I remember the T-37 variant of the Tempest. A lower price model that could be "optioned up" to create a sort of "pseudo" muscle car on a budget & probably come in "under the radar" with your insurance company as well...

[@christinecrawford]

My high school boyfriend had a 1971 GT-37. I loved that car but the GTO (especially 1965) is my all favorite car ever!

[@joehumenansky8225]

In 1967 Oldsmobile offered a turnpike cruiser option on the Cutlass Supreme. It was offered with the 400 cid 2 bbl carb turbo 400 and if memory serves me correctly a 2.56 rear end. They also had the climatic combustion control system that was basically a special air cleaner with a hot air tube to aid in faster warm up. As you stated Adam, the powertrain was offered in '68 on the 442 when it was a stand alone model. I've seen a few '67 TC's and very few '68 442 2 bbl cars. I knew of one when I saw it in high school shop class. In '69 It's my belief they dropped the option in favor of the W31.

[@racerj2.03]

My best friend had a true 1969 GTO. No options, four speed with floor mounted shifter, and the std. 400 335 horsepower engine.I had the anthissis of the GTO My friend had. I special ordered mine with 255 2bbl. 255hp. 400ci engine in my 1969 GTO. I Configured it that way for two reasons. 1) I would be doing a lot of highway driving with the car. And 2) I had planned to keep it as long as I could. I invisioned at least 10 years. Though turned out not to be the case. Ask my brother about that sometime! We knew in early 1969 that unleaded gas was coming and with that lower octain ratings. The economy version was called the " Highway Cruise " option and it served my needs well. Just Saying.

[@mydsmber05]

I imagine these existed at least in part for the same reason you can an order up an M-Sport, or AMG Line base model BMW or Mercedes. Some people want the sporty looks, and the sportier feel, but don’t necessarily need or want the speed. The GTO and 442 in particular weren’t cheap, and I imagine a big chunk of the folks buying them were just schlepping them through the city back and forth to work and the extra power was useless, and made the trade offs of having lower gas mileage, and a lumpier cam less tolerable. On the Oldsmobile they previously offered the “Turnpike Cruiser” Package on the Cutlass Supreme that had a similar configuration. And later on they came out with the SX which was basically a 442 with the Turnpike Cruiser spec drivetrain. I can’t speak for the other brands, but I also know that in 1970 you could order a Chevelle with a 400 ci 2 bbl motor, F41 suspension, bucket seats etc… and get a very similar style of car as well .

[@ryanfoster9863]

Back in the ‘90’s my dad would work with smaller Chevy dealerships in Central Texas with ordering new cars. He made sure they all had one or two V6 Camaros. They would sell to local mid-30’s+ office ladies at a fair price. The V6 made them a economical commuter. My dad would have done the same thing in 1965 when he started with GM. The base engines were probably popular for the same reasons back then. I could also see someone ordering a base car to put their own special race engine into.

[@haqitman]

Around 1990 i went into the Oregon hills to look at a GTO for sale. I think it was a 66 but could have been a 67. It was gold in color and i thought it could be a Hurst edition as well. It had a 2 barrel carb and automatic on the column (odd for a Hurst). The seller seemed to think it was original; i had some doubts, especially since switching a muscle car over to a 2 barrel carb was not unheard of during the 70s fuel crises. It was not a fast car, perhaps limited by tall gears and needing a good tune up. I opted not to get it but it always stuck in my mind as something of an odd duck.

[@michaelbenardo5695]

They did indeed exist, but I would have wanted a shorter rear end and 3 speed stick/OD setup.

[@billdescoteaux]

Yes, in "64, 442 stood for 4-barrel, 4-speed and dual exhausts. In '65, the 442 engine became a 400 cu. in. So, with 3-speed manual and automatics now an option, the meaning transitioned to 400. 4-barrel, dual exhausts. Of course, ordering the Turnpike Crusing option in '68 would be an exception to the 4-barrel rule. And, over the years different size engines would become available.

[@29madmangaud29]

Hey Adam, I remember my mom's '72 Cadillac Coupe De Ville, with a stock 472 V-8. When that car was freshly tuned up, it would get : 14mpg City, and 21 mpg Hwy.. I remember that well!

[@J.W.W.]

My first car (in 1979) was a 65,000 mile 1970 Olds Cutlass SX. It was mostly junk at 9 years old, but it sure was fun 0-60

[@davidstranz438]

Having been a child when these cars were new and owning several muscle cars as a teen and young adult ( my favorite was an LS6, M22 Chevelle) I really enjoy your muscle car themed episodes.

[@manonmars2009]

I had a 1978 Olds Cutlass Supreme back in the day, and I recall the owners manual mentioning that the 260 V8 was an "economy V8" with a whopping 110 hp. I kept meticulous notes every time I filled up the car with gas. One day I sat down and calculated how much gas was burned over time and found that the "economy V8" averaged 15.5 mpg after driving 60,000 miles over a three year period of time. I couldn't believe that the economy V8 burned through 3,871 gallons of gas. I was not impressed, and traded it in for a new car that returned better fuel economy.

[@nathangreer8219]

We also had a 260 1978 CS... with a 5-speed manual transmission!

[@markg7030]

That car is a smog era low compression with EGR and Cat converter.

[@stevespatola763]

I have a u8 Cutlass Sal I n Brougham coupe with the 260 V8. Smooth engine, low power. I also once owned the 78 Buick Century, a sister car, with the V6. That was really gutless. The Olds has a 2:39 rear end. In CA, one couldn't get the 78 Salon based 442 because the only available engine was the 260 V8 but with the 5 speed manual, N/A with that engine in CS. Mine has the 200C automatic.

[@stevespatola763]

Not available in CA. Darn small keyboards.

[@michaelbenardo5695]

Blame the EPA for that. If you had removed the EGR, the catalytic converter, and recurved the distributor, you would have got about 22 MPG, all while enjoying V8 performance. It would have been more than 110 horsepower.

[@jerrystaley1563]

Adam, great video as usual... No one ever seems to talk about the 1963 "Baby GTO" with its 260 hp 326 (actual 336) cid V-8. During my Senior year at highschool I had a 1963 Tempest Custom with the 2-bbl V-326 and 3-speed manual transaxle with IRS. You did a fine job with your video of the 1961-63 B-O-P senior compacts but the Tempest part merely covered the unusal "Trophy 4" slant 4 cyl and the even more unusual "rope drive." I once read a magazine ad about the 1963 "Two Tiger" Tempest V-326: 4-bbl and dual exhaust equipped with 375 hp but have never seen one or seen a road test. My cordovan brown metallic '63 Sports Coupe was very good looking and very fast for its time. These "Baby GTOs" have sadly been overlooked. I'd wager that it would give a 1964 Olds 4-4-2 a real run for its money!

[@jerrystaley1563]

Oops... 326 4 bbl had 275 hp NOT 375! My fingers are too big for my phone's tiny keyboard. My apologies. JJS

[@michaelbenardo5695]

You had a rare one allright. Almost all of those were 4 cyl. That car would be a real prize today, and with it's light weight, that 326/336 would plenty of motor.

[@michaelkehm3663]

Thank you Adam for sharing these facts on economy engines in the GTO and 442. I knew sbout them back in the day but haven't thought about them in decades. Saw one or two GTO'S with the 2bl option come in for service in the very early 70's when I started my career at the local Pontiac dealership. Never have seen a 68 442 with the 2bl but have driven a Delta 88 with this engine.

[@jakereal3604]

Adam just a thought ….. perhaps it was for insurance purposes ???? With lower advertised HP insurance maybe was less. Think a younger person with limited funds. He could order one the swap out the intake and add a 4 barrel and insurance wouldn’t know it. Sneaky way around the system !

[@michaelbenardo5695]

Don't think some didn't, but often, it didn't work well, as the 4 barrel on that model was for a more aggressive cam. An aftermarket 4 barrel was much better, as you could tailor it for your exact engine setup.

[@hiitsstillme]

Interesting review, thanks Adam. We think the Buick 340 introduced in 1966 was offered in the Skylark as a GS340. The engine was offered in 2 and 4bbl versions, although perhaps only the 4bbl was available for the GS... were not sure.

[@DejaView]

Yes, I was thinking Buick had the GS340 as well as the GS400. So there, essentially was their "economy" version of a muscle car. I suspect, back in the day, some chose the lesser powered versions because insuring them may have been less costly as well.

[@ScarlettFire341]

I would guess when Dad was buying the car for his son or daughter, as promised, he could get the low compression 2 barrel so they wouldn't kill themselves with the HP, plus the Insurance may be less too

[@kc0lif]

early 442 were nice.

[@joeseeking3572]

I think the ultimate expression of economy 'sporty' cars were the 6 cylinder Impala SS - all that weight and a 2 speed powerglide. Who bought and why? No clue, but there were a (relatively) few takers.

[@mylanmiller9656]

Different people want different things, the original idea of the GTO was put all your dollars into performance, save the frills. There are also people who want the frills and the Sporty image but will hold the performance. I had a friend that his dad bought a 1967 Chevell SS396 L78. It had all the power he wanted but I don't think he ever opened the 4 barrels. He just wanted to say he had a hot car. Mopar did a real good job of selling good Cheap High-performance cars in the late 1960's with the dart swinger and road runner all go no show. Mopar kind of stole the GTO striped ape idea and took it to the next leave.

[@michaelbenardo5695]

Those Chevys weren't really all that heavy, not like the 70s Chevys.

[@mylanmiller9656]

@@michaelbenardo5695 the full size chevy was not heavy by todays standard but compared to a super stock Dodge or Plymouth the Ford or Chevy were 700 pounds to heavy Ford built the thunderbolt Fairlane because the Galaxy Was too heavy to be competitive with the Mopar's.

[@mattpukach6553]

Great video, I’d like to hear more about changes in gasoline during this time and how it affected cars moving forward and what had to be done to make older cars run properly today on modern pump gas.

[@jeffrobodine8579]

If Pontiac buyers wanted an economy minded performance car they could have opted for a LeMans with the OHC inline six.

[@jetsons101]

Now if one put the 1969 Sprint 6, 230 hp, in a 64 or 65 Tempest, that would be a fun car. The Tempest is a bit lighter than the LeMans.

[@michaelbenardo5695]

Some did, as they didn't want a sporty car, just a nice car that didn't drink gas.

[@danielulz1640]

In 1969, my Step-father bought a 67 Cutlass with the 442 option package AND the Supreme package. It was double badged, CS stand up hood ornament and 442 grille badge, etc. Great car.

[@DustinDriver]

“economy V8” with 440 pound feet of torque LOL truly awesome times.

[@hugieflhr03]

The 2bbl offered the off the line torque and quick pedal response but without the ability to chug fuel through a big 780cfm 4bbl

[@OLDS98]

This follow up to the other video was quite good. I had heard about the turnpike cruiser engine from my Oldsmobile videos. That is interesting to know about this fact. GM really used to do so much and always making a new way to do something. Fuel economy was indeed an issue. Years later we got the Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais 442 in the late 1980's early 1990's. That was an economy minded "442". There are many videos of it here on You Tube. Thank you for sharing your information with many Adam.

[@joebutchko2223]

What a bummer being forced to buy premium fuel for the '68 442. Texico Sky Chief was 36 cents a gallon then. Today it doesn't seem like a big problem..

[@jetsons101]

64 and 65 A-Bodys were great but by 66 and up they got bigger and heaver, although they do look great. Always wanted to take a 65 Vista Cruiser wagon and make it into a 442 wagon, 4 speed of Course.... Thanks to Adam for keeping American Automotive history alive.

[@ScarlettFire341]

actually the 68 and Up wheel base decreased from 115" to 112" but the car weighted more and appeared bigger

[@jetsons101]

Learn something new everyday.....@@ScarlettFire341

[@ronaldderooij1774]

Very interesting. But as a European, "Economy minded" in this context is a bit funny.

[@TonyKuehler]

Fuel quality could still be spotty. Regular fuel was a big deal, premium was not reliable. It was also specified by fathers of sons and daughters purposefully, Insurance might have been lower. It would be interesting to know if there was a primary driver to the change or multiple reasons.

[@billharris7226]

I worked for an Olds Dealer in the early 70s. Olds made a 442 type car with the 400 2 barrel a 2.56 axil called the Cutlass SX. It looked just like a 442. It was marketed as a highway cruiser. At our Dealership it was popular in the convertible.

[@rightlanehog3151]

Adam, Then as now, some folks just don't want to pay for premium gas. 😉 In the case of the 2 barrel V8s you discussed, they certainly offered plenty of torque. Your look at the Cutlass has reminded me of how overdue this channel is for a full expose of the Vista Cruiser. 🤩

[@CJColvin]

You need to do videos about the 66-69 Beaumont SD as well as the 66-67 Acadian Canso SD and the 68-70 Acadian SS.

[@rogergoodman8665]

They are interesting, but look out of place sitting on "non wide track" Chevrolet frames.

[@CJColvin]

@@rogergoodman8665 True (considering they're Chevy cars with Pontiac styling).

[@michaelbenardo5695]

@@rogergoodman8665 Those were Pontiac versions of the Chevelle and the Chevy II/Nova.

[@rogergoodman8665]

@michaelbenardo5695 : I'm well aware what they are and why they were built the way they were. I saw them many times since the 1980's. Adam has a 1959 Canadian Pontiac also.

[@CJColvin]

@@rogergoodman8665 He also has a Canadian Ford like the 68 Meteor Montcalm.

[@bruceh92]

Good feature, thanks.

[@Dr_Reason]

Pontiac always seemed to have a fuel economy option.

[@ozymandias9797]

Recently watched a barnfind on a very rusty 69 GTO. One owner, special ordered. Two barrel 400 credit motor. No power steering, no power brakes, no hood tach, no hideaway headlights. Bucket seats, no console, column automatic. But it had an am/fm radio. Very strange.

[@rogergoodman8665]

You must be referring to the latest "Pole Barn Garage" acquisition!!! Dalton is entertaining to watch. It should be interesting to see what he does to it. The "Holey Goat" 1970 GTO just got polycarbonate door and quarter windows installed.

[@markmaiello9180]

In 1970, Olds offered the Rallye 350 (Cutlass based) with a 350 V8 small block. My guess is the smaller engine on the 442 disappeared to put a little room b/w it and the yellow-only Rallye. The Rallye was an attempt to work around higher insurance premiums…it was a decent idea that didn’t pan out. The Rallye didn’t sell…but it’s a looker…

[@codyluka8355]

The big reason the Ralley did not sell very well was the fact that it came in only one color...Canary Yellow. The matching painted bumpers did not help either. Had Oldsmobile made the package available in a choice of different colors and kept the chrome bumpers, the Ralley could have been a hit.

[@scottpeterson4873]

I had a expresso brown 69 gto with the XX code 400 2v and PT matching turbo 400 with a safetrack 323 rear. Interestingly it had floor shifter, black bucket seats, and power attenae and a trailer hitch in the back. First thought- it was a fluke, it had been rebuilt with steel headgaskets but it was a special order car . Thanks Adam, always wondered if it was an engine swap from a lesser car. Pontiac Historical Services said the production numbers for this option was roughly 3000 units give or take that year. It could run on pump gas without backfiring or pinging, great low end and pleasant to drive. Sold it to a Pontiac guy that had one totaled by a drunk driver and always wanted another to restore.

[@debbiebermudez5890]

Mr. B. Here ! 👀😎👍. I have 64 Cutlass S Convertible - 70 442 Convertible - two 76 Cutlass , 442 &. Cutlass S love them all ! Easy to maintain ! I’ve toll ( it not A Chevy ) LOL !

[@MostlyBuicks]

I think your estimate of 18 to 20 mpg is about right. I have had Buick 455s that got 18 on the freeway, as had my dad. My Buick Skylarks with high compression 300 and 350 V8s with 4 bbl carbs easily got 20 mpg. My Buicks had either 2:56 or 2:78 rear gears too.

[@HAL-dm1eh]

That would explain why my 350 4 bbl equipped 68 LeSabre got as good MPGs as my dad's compact 4x4 powered by a 4 cylinder. It was probably around 20 mpg and though that was pretty expected with his it was kind of surprising for mine. The high gears (which it had) would explain it.

[@MostlyBuicks]

@@HAL-dm1eh My 65 and 66 289 Galaxys got better mpg than my former wife's 74 4cyl Mustang II.

[@Sedan57Chevy]

I've got no problem with running on regular gas, but I am surprised just how many two barrels were floating around, especially on big blocks.

[@michaelbenardo5695]

Before the 70s and 350 engines with only 145 horsepower, 2 barrel versions were more common than you think. Still had plenty of power, especially compared to a Chevy Stovebolt 6 or a flathead 6.

[@fernandochaves9665]

Very interesting. Any video about muscle cars is! There are many subjects to talk about them. 4:48 & 7:58 Jaw-dropping beauty..

[@stephenflowers8516]

This is kind of like ordering a 70 Trans Am with an automatic and no center console. You got a 70 T/A with an automatic on the column.

[@timferguson1593]

I'm a Chevy guy. The 67-72 Camaro and the 67-72 Chevy Chevelle/ SS396 or SS454 to me were THE muscle cars of the 60s and early 70s. I had a 74 Monte Carlo. It had a small block 400. T-Tops, swivel bucket seats, it was gray(I call it casket gray), maroon landau roof, maroon cloth interior and power everything. Cruise control. Every option. And did I mention that when I put the pedal down, that bad girl would get up and flat fly! I was 16 and driving a girl getter. Very fortunate that I had a good job(s). I worked at a grocery store and also for my dad who along with my uncle built houses and apartment complexes. My dad signed for it but I made all car payments and insurance. My monthly car payment was $77.20. that's around 350.00- 400.00 today. I worked alot!!

[@michaelbenardo5695]

Wow, you were a lucky kid! A 77.00 a month car payment wasn't high even then, and you had a hot-looking car on top of that! I had a 40 Plymouth that I bought myself when I was 17.

[@mattdirks7896]

Intriguing video.

[@DanEBoyd]

Some GTO/442 buyers were attracted to the marque and the look, but didn't want a thirsty engine or solid valve adjustments, and the divisions were not going to compromise on cubic inches and put smaller engines their performance cars. I'd love to hear the story on those Rally I wheels seen on the GTO Sports Coupe @3:52. Why did they stay with the Rally IIs? The 325 HP 396 carried on in the non-SS Chevelle (and larger models) in 1970, and for a few more years, as the 400 Turbo Jet.

[@dougkabler3032]

Rally II wheels were always more popular.

[@HAL-dm1eh]

I find it interesting they even had MPGs in mind back then. Economy cars I can understand as initial costs of automobiles could be quite different. But gas was so affordable I'd think there were diminishing returns in that respect when one moved towards economy, especially with the lack of technology and engineering for it to make a real difference.

[@michaelbenardo5695]

People who grew up in the Depression, and those who lived far from work, often cared about gas mileage. The Baby Boom generation, and those born during the war didn't care about it.

[@tarkus522]

Don't forget about the 1970 Olds Rally 350 only available with the 350 V8. Plus the 'Heavy Chevy' Chevelle from 1971 & 1972. It was available with the 307, 350, or 402

[@Primus54]

Interesting topic, Adam. And the photos in this video are outstanding. 👍👍👍

[@paulypooper2]

My thoughts are maybe if you have a teenage driver and wanted the status and sportiness of the GTO or 442 but not all the raw power and speed that the more powerful engines provided then the 250 horsepower engine would make sense

[@michaelbenardo5695]

Still too much power for them! An old Model T would be good enough, I would have told mine!

[@damianbowyer2018]

Wow, the '64 Pontiac GTO and '64 Oldsmobile 442 were Terrific Early Muscle Cars with Economy Options for their V8's. Just Awesome that these Options would be available back then, Adam😎🤘

[@kayeninetwo3585]

I haven't read the other comments, so I don't know if this has been mentioned, but my '63 Olds Dynamic 88 hardtop coupe had a 394 c.i. 2 bbl in it, and that engine was available with a standard 280 hp, or in a lower compression version that produced 260 hp. As I recall, the lower compression/horsepower version was intended primarily as an export version for Canada (and maybe other countries), where higher octane gas may not have been available. I wonder if that also was the intention of lower compression/powered engines in the GTO, 442 or other muscle cars; export. Or if lower octane gas in other countries was even still an issue by '67? Just a thought.

[@hughjass1044]

In 1964, and as far as I know, only 1964, you could get a Chevelle SS with a 230 6 cylinder and a 3 on the tree. I don't know the figures but I believe I'm safe in assuming there weren't very many of them but they could be had nonetheless. In '64, the SS was a trim package only. There were certainly plenty of performance options to be had but it wasn't until '65 that it became a strictly performance package.

[@michaelbenardo5695]

I don't know about the SS version, but the base engine on Chevelles and even big Chevys was indeed the Stovebolt 6.

[@hughjass1044]

The 230 wasn't the "Stovebolt." That was the older generation 235.@@michaelbenardo5695

[@basilcarroll9729]

Don't think they were available in 64?

[@hughjass1044]

Yup, they were. Actually saw one several years ago. And one of the KZbin car channels (forget now which one) did a video on one some years back.@@basilcarroll9729

[@DejaView]

Actually it wasn't till 1966 with the addition of the new big block "396" to the Chevelle engine line-up that the SS cars truly became performance oriented in the way the GTO & 442 had been since their inception. Albeit given the fact that 1st yr 442s, although they offered 310 HP, had considerably less displacement than the 389 GTO. They nevertheless did have special suspension, standard 4spd manual & other performance "goodies". The Chevy SS "package" cars completely change in nature after the original 1961 Impala SS offering. That was a true performance package. Std. engine was any of 3 big block 348 engines 305/350/360 HP. 4spd trans ("Hi Perf" Powerglide available w/305 only) special suspension, metallic brake lining, (oddly, no bucket seats that year) and it was available on any Impala body style. (Wagons were not included as there were no Impala wagons at that time. Wagons all had their own specific model designations) If you can find the brochure, the car pictured is a 4dr HT. A real "family" hot rod. When you go to the '62 Chevy brochure, the SS package is purely cosmetic. Special exterior moldings & trim & a snazzy bucket seat interior w/console. All of the performance goodies are "suggested" options for those who are interested. It was likewise for Chevelle until '66 & in 1967 Impala SS became "SS-427" & newly introduced Camaro SS had a std. 350 & finally 68 Nova SS got to share the Camaro 350. 1967 was the last yr for Nova SS with any engine, even the base "6". Comparing '64/'65 Chevelle engine line-up to GTO & 442 goes something like this. Early '64 brochures list 220 HP 4bbl 283 as the top engine offering for Chevelle. It's hard to believe the Chevrolet division was caught that "off-guard" by Pontiacs offering of the GTO, but they had nothing to match it. They were probably not allowed at that time, to consider the 409. GM management had a policy, no engine over 400 CID in a car smaller (i.e. lighter) than full-size. It wasn't, however, that Chevy didn't have some hot engines. The had a whole line of high output 327s for the Corvette. So... Late year, revised, brochures list available engines for Chevelle including 327/ 250,300 & 365 HP versions. 365 HP carb. version being only 10 HP less than the top Corvette "fulie" version. That one had an obviously radical cam & solid lifters & was manual trans only. The other two could be had with Powerglide, & with a decent axle ratio were still pretty quick, though likely not a match for the GTO but maybe close to the 442. I've often wanted to see a match-up of a stock Chevelle 327/365 with either of the GTO engines just for comparison. More HP, but less torque & all in a much higher RPM range. Gearing might be the deciding factor but I suspect it would have to be close. For '65 the top Chevelle engine became the "new" 327/350. Slightly milder cam & hydraulic lifters. A little less HP but a much nicer "daily driver" that I'm sure was still no slouch. However that same 327/350 then became available in the even smaller & lighter Nova. Knew a guy in H.S. who had one. Too much car for an inexperienced kid. Darn near killed himself & a friend in it.....

[@darwinmichel2087]

My mom said she had a 70-s Olds 442 she said you could step on the gas watch the tat go one way in the fuel gauge go another when you really put your foot in it.

[@TheSpritz0]

It MIGHT have been for owners who wanted both Regular-Fuel engine, and possibly in some jurisdictions for LOWER insurance cost...

[@alexanderspenser4960]

Hi-Energy ignition not an option but nice addition for the 442. 👍🏽🏁

[@jamesengland7461]

Funny thing, lower compression is actually less efficient, though it allows the use of cheaper gas.

[@michaelbenardo5695]

Technically, true, but usually had a milder cam, and mild cams give you better gas mileage. Hot cams cause bad mileage, but give more top end.

[@Low760]

Australia just had the 253 holden v8 for economy and the 308 for power.

[@unexplained666]

Very insteresting take on the muscle car topic. I do like it! /owner of 71 2dr hdtop Chrysler Newport Custom with 383 2bbl 275hp :)

[@29madmangaud29]

Yeah Adam, my 2nd car, as a kid was a 1968 Olds F-85 Cutlass, it was a 350/ 2bbl. w/ a powerglide (2spd) auto tranny. It had a/c and electric windows. The A/C didn't work, the windows did. It had a burned exhaust valve, or two, as I've found out later. I sold it to my best buddy, for $117.oo, but I drove it for over a year, never broke down on me. I bought it for just "$25.00. I had to measure, and buy rod bearings for it, and I bought the mains, but didn't need them. Oh, and a battery, later came the drum brake shoes.

[@michaelbenardo5695]

That was the 2 speed Jet-A-Way transmission. The Chevy Powerglide was a much more durable trans.

[@29madmangaud29]

Well, thank you very much, I've never heard of that before.@@michaelbenardo5695

[@29madmangaud29]

and mine slipped big time, when it would go from 1st to 2nd,,, hit the gas, and wow,, wheels would spin and oh boy.;

[@basilcarroll9729]

​​@@michaelbenardo5695Olds used them from 64-69 ,I had a couple with out issues even with a 455 engine.

[@jerrystaley1563]

Didn't the original 1964 Olds 4-4-2 have a twin Walker chambered-exhaust system instead of the normal dual mufflers and tailpipes?

[@tertommy]

Front bumper at 2:07?

[@michaelnault5905]

I didn't know electronic ignition was an option? I'm kidding in reference to your engine pic :⁠-⁠) Great video!

[@georgewilson1184]

GTO or Cutlass ??that’s like Sierra or Silverado ? TransAM or Z/28 Elcamino / Sprint Astre’ or Vega life is super tuff many proverbial questions Jett’s or Dominoes

[@darrellsaunders4267]

Interesting..there was only TWO CENTS DIFFERENCE per GALLON between Regular and Ethyl.

[@gm12551]

That 2 cents is probably .50 today

[@throttlewatch4614]

I had a 68 Catalina with the 400 2bbl carb it got 20mpg

[@damianbowyer2018]

The '64 Cutlass looked Gr8, but I prefer the '64 GTO, Adam😊🤲

[@michaeltolomei6623]

hey hey, look at that, a month later after my comment, bam, 442 on the scene, not sure if I had anything to do with that, but neat anyway! I own a 1969 442. 344879 vin car, so she's the real deal. though she's no longer #'s sadly. Had the original transmission but not the engine so we put a 455 under hood for a reasonably good resto-mod. Silver on black strips, hard top, buckets and console. full gauge pack, including the tach clock, AC car, though it was deleted, I have half a mind to restore it though.

[@firecriss1392]

People would argue with me on this the 1968 styling of the 442 was it's pinnacle--the years afterwards were just kind of .....there.

[@basilcarroll9729]

My favorite year, but the others nice too,I had a 69.

[@alexmerlin4764]

For me it's hard to understand what's the difference between '64 trim package and '65 model, I guess it's just marketing. If it was me who defines the terms, I'd said that in that time period Pontiac had 2 models in various body styles and trim packages.

[@marko7843]

The economy Oldsmobile versus the economy Pontiac figures make perfect sense to me. My low-comp '72 Cutlass 350 could outrun my '73 Grand Am 400 (with EGR disconnected) and get 20 MPG on the highway vs 17...

[@Slowgroovin]

Back when musclecars were meant to be affordable.

[@terribelbliss9646]

Hi Adam, Another unusual thing about the 442 was that in 64, and I think 65, it was available option package on a 4 door model. Probably due to the police package origins.

[@61rampy65]

It was available as a 4 door sedan, but I'm not sure if it could be had in a 4 door hardtop.

[@basilcarroll9729]

I believe just in 64.

[@DejaView]

Just looked at 1964 Olds Salesmen's literature. Brochure #8. Note at bottom of 1st page states: "available in any F-85 V-8 model except station wagon". However no 4dr HT was available in the GM midsize lines till the 1966 model yr.

[@pcno2832]

This saved buyers money on not only the fuel, but on insurance, yet they still got to show off a "442". I'll bet some of them kept their conservative engine choices a well-guarded secret.

[@francispalmer8834]

I was lucky to own a 65 G T O and a 68 442 ❤

[@floridaroadways]

I had a 1972 GTO. I liked it better than a 73 GTO. I paid $5000. In 1984.

[@MostlyBuicks]

Reminds me of a South Park episode about a soda with twice the sugar and twice the caffeine. In which they later came out with a diet version with half the sugar and half the caffeine of the loaded one. Why bother? Just buy a nice Pontiac LeMans with the HD suspension and the 326 or 350 V8. Oh, I get it they want the BADGING but they do not want to pay an extra 3 cents for Premium gas, back when it was 33 cents a gallon.

[@Ed_Stuckey]

_Economy-Minded Muscle Car_ Reminded me of the 4-cylinder Pontiac Firebirds 😅

[@RareClassicCars]

Ooo. Good one!

[@tomwesley7884]

Don't think a four cylinder was offered in Trans Am. Trans Am is to Firebird as 442 is to Cutlass.

[@impalaSS65]

Very interesting. Wouldn't want one, much less pay for it to be "rare", still interesting facts.

[@scottymoondogjakubin4766]

Was that a HEI distributer on the 64 olds ?

[@markg7030]

Somebody swapped it in.

[@scottymoondogjakubin4766]

@@markg7030 Thats what i thought ! I did that a few times myself ! Amazing how all the pre 1975 gm cars you can do this too !

[@fleetwin1]

I never knew these economy engines were offered...

[@linwoodccole9765]

Both were street masters

[@JackF99]

The old "Horsepower Delete" option

[@mikeyshouseofbrakes8463]

Economy engine was economical more for being a regular fuel engine opposed to requiring more expensive premium fuel.

[@courtneypuzzo2502]

in my opinion the 442 wasn't a muscle car but a gentlemen's boulevard cruiser as it was based on the 2 hardtop version of the Cutlass Supreme which was the top trim available of six usually offered base Calais Salon Sport Supreme and cutlass cruiser station wagon the car sold 633,000 in 1977 only beat at GM by the downsized Chevrolet Impala/Caprice selling 660,000 that year

[@myleslong5584]

The 4-4-2 may not win every matchup race,I’ll agree. But,it’ll keep you IN the race (long as bearings don’t spin out) and nothing can bring a bigger smile to your face than 500 foot pounds of pure,angry,American torque. Plus,those A-body Oldsmobiles were BEAUTIFUL and built with quality.

[@mcqueenfanman]

One thing about Olds over every other GM division is the larger number of options you could get, they had a lot more axle ratios and transmissions to choose from over Chey and Pontiac. Plus the 442 came standard with the hd frame and sway bars front and rear, which other divisions didn't have.

[@michaelbenardo5695]

@@mcqueenfanman There was also a Tri-Power option on certain years. It was indeed one of the fastest out there, as long as you had a manual trans and not that miserable 2 speed automatic.

[@myleslong5584]

@@michaelbenardo5695 Think it was offered in ‘66 ONLY and very few of them were made. Cool,though.

[@TalismanPHX]

Economy engined for lower insurance costs to the owner??

[@tombrown1898]

Don't know about the "Senior Compact" A-Bodies, but my best friend's father bought a 1959 Pontiac Catalina wagon with the "Economy" engine. Until the day he died, he never stopped complaining about the lousy gas mileage he got from that car! He traded it for a 1963 Olds Super 88, with the 394 c.i. Ultra High Compression engine and never said a word against it.

[@michaelbenardo5695]

Maybe his carb was too rich, or the float was too high. That "economy" engine was supposed to be pretty good on gas, for a V8 of that size.

[@DinsdalePiranha67]

Through the decades Oldsmobile played it a bit fast and loose with what "442" stood for. The last car that wore that badge - the Cutlass Calais Quad 442 - had neither a four-speed manual nor a carburetor!

[@mikelezcurra810]

It probably had 42 psi in the tires.

[@jamesengland7461]

Well, at least three better-a 5 speed, 4 valves per cylinder, and 4 fuel injectors.

[@ericbamberg8524]

4 lumbar supports 4 cup holders and 2 airbags

[@davidbolt5113]

GM: why put an economy minded engine in a premium brand (Buick, and only one year in Olds)?

[@MrJayrock620]

Really it’s no different than Mercedes offering the AMG trim package or BMW with their M Sport appearance group. It’s the same idea, just in reverse. All the cosmetics get applied to the standard model, and you might get a handling package with it as well.

[@WhittyPics]

We don't get all these choices today

[@kc9scott]

Not “today”, but the 2nd-gen Ford Fusion had 6 powertrain choices: 2.5 NA, 1.5 Ecoboost (economy oriented), 2.0 Ecoboost (power oriented), 2.7 Ecoboost (high performance), a hybrid, and a plug-in hybrid. Some of them offered AWD. All were sadly automatic, though.

[@jamesengland7461]

We don't need all these piddling choices either. Some are silly.

[@michaelbenardo5695]

Blame the EPA. Each engine/trans/model has to be separately 50,000 mile certified. Way too expensive for all but the popular combos.

[@michaelbenardo5695]

@@kc9scott But boosted engines often are short-lived, and while more fuel efficient than a larger engine producing the same horsepower, do use more gas than an unblown engine of the same cubic inches.

[@michaelbenardo5695]

@@jamesengland7461 What may seem silly to one is smart to the other. Thing is, we had CHOICES.

[@j.robertbois610]

If 442 meant 4-barrel, 4-speed, dual exhaust. I’m curious how olds made their economy V-8 a 2-barrel. Kind of embarrassing I think.

[@basilcarroll9729]

They called it a turnpike cruiser, the buyers knew what they wanted.

[@j.robertbois610]

@@basilcarroll9729 Thank you.

[@THROTTLEPOWER]

👍👍