How Rare?

Topic: How Rare? (Read 2607 times) previous topic - next topic

Reply #15 – November 15, 2008, 01:14:03 AM

and once upon a time when car and driver was new on the air like in 90 i think, I saw an episode on this whole "442" reasoning. The two designers were discussing how they arrived at 442. It matches nothing about what the net has today nor any authority on these cars. This was an honest to goodness show on this car and its history. I cant for the life of me recall being on drugs while i was watching this show so I know what i saw back then.

Its odd but my definition of what 442 means never matches what everyone says so ive gotta be wrong.

How Rare?

Reply #16 – November 15, 2008, 07:55:28 AM

Here's the official Wikipedia answer. So it's gotta be right. LOL

Quote

Some people mistakenly believe that the designation "442" referred to the displacement of the engine in cubic inches. The reality is that a 442 has never had a 442 cubic inch engine. Rather, the genesis for the name 4-4-2 came from the attributes of the 1964 model:
1964 (Original meaning)
4: Four Barrel Carburetion
4: Four On the Floor
2: Dual Exhausts

With the 4-4-2 moniker established, later editions did not officially follow any adherence to features stemming from the numerals "4-4-2". However, in some later model years, the features did informally match the 4-4-2 numerals, as described below.
1965 (First year of automatic transmission option on 442)
4: 400 Cubic Inch Displacement
4: Four Barrel Carburetion
2: Dual Exhausts

1985 to 1987 (Last of RWD 442s)
4: Four speed automatic
4: Four barrel carburetor
2: Dual exhaust

1990 and 1991 (FWD 442)
4: Four cylinders
4: Four valves
2: Two camshafts

How Rare?

Reply #17 – November 15, 2008, 09:32:42 AM

You mean one like this???

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/1979_Hurst_Olds_W-30_front.jpg

The W-30s are highly collectible...

How Rare?

Reply #18 – November 15, 2008, 12:23:02 PM

Turbo,
Well, yes and no. I'd say the year model is the same, but this car by me is no W-30 or Hurst. The front end is the same. This car is black with gold, and honestly I'm not sure I've ever seen it in the daylight (I always walk my dog at night). The paint scheme isn't the same, I don't believe. And this car isn't the standard Cutlass "notchback" body; it's the Cutlass with the sloped rear window and the trunklid that slopes at the same angle. Kinda like the SS Monte Carlo aerocoupe, but not quite as sporty. That's why I wondered if this was a "rarer" car?

And I knew that there were different "442" definitions over the years. I knew at one time they were all 4-speeds, but a few years into it, there were lots of automatic 442's, so whichever "4" meant 4-speed had to change definitions. I'm guessing my local car has a 307 or 350, and a 3-speed auto. Heck, it may only have a 260 Olds. Anyway, thanks for all the feedbacks. I just think it's a cool-looking and very well-preserved car to be a daily driver. Later.

Fordman3

How Rare?

Reply #19 – November 15, 2008, 06:01:50 PM

Quote from: fordman3;243010

By the way, back in the day (don't you hate that phrase?), weren't the G-bodies the competition for the Birds and Cougars, and similarly priced and optioned? If that's true, why do the GM's seem to hold so much higher value than our Fords? A decent mid-80's Cutlass will still sell for, say, $2000+, and you might get the same model Bird in as good condition for half that. I'm not complaining, mind you, just curious. Any thoughts?

Fordman3

My theory is that G-bodies simply looked old. Our cars were ahead of their time. People looking for an old car want it to look old, or they are nostalgic for the days when the car was new. Nobody would mistake a mid 80's G-body for anything other than an 80's car. Fox Thundercats, on the other hand, were at least a decade ahead of their time. They look too new to be 80's cars, so they don't evoke the 80's nostalgia. Park a mint 87-88 T-Bird or Cougar in a lot full of late 90's, early 2000's cars and non-car people would never guess that it's a decade (or two) older. For that reason our cars are simply "used cars" while G-bodies are "classics". Marketing was also an issue. Most of the G-bodies were marketed toward younger buyers and were given a sportier image. There were your 442's, SS's, GN's, etc. The cars had available T-tops, the V8's were rated for more power than Ford's lo-po 5.0 (even though the lighter, better handling Fords were as quick or quicker). They were also generally cheaper. Ford aimed the T-Bird and Cougar at older, more mature buyers. Even the Turbo Coupe was "sophisticated performance", with its ABS, ride control, etc.

That is changing now, though, I think. T-Birds and Cougars are becoming harder to find, and when you do find one it's usually expensive.

Quote from: jpc647;243014

Oldsmobiles sell for a lot more because no offense they were built better. Don't get me wrong I love my tbird but in the 80's oldsmobile was still using full frame cars, not this uni-body rust attracting design Ford was using. Oldsmobile's rocket 350 engine was a torque monster, with a substantially wider "v" than the chevy's and other manufactures. Thats why the engines lasted to long. Its not uncommon to see original oldsmobiles with 400k-500k miles on them. Again, im not ranking on the fox bodies, I love my car, Ford just typically made "cheaper" cars. They did have a unique style though.

A few problems with your reasons:

1) Oldsmobile stopped using the 350 in G-bodies in the late 70's, around the same time Ford stopped using its even torquier 351M and 400 in the T-Birds. All 80's G-bodies were powered by a Chevy (229) or Buick (231) V6, Pontiac 301 (I believe only in the LeMans, and only 79-80), a Chevy 267 or 305, or an Olds 307. There were probably a few Olds diesels in there, too, but no "Rockets". All of these engines except the turbocharged 231 were carbureted, compared to Ford's across-the-board electronic fuel injection. As for reliability, it's not uncommon to see Ford's 302 and 2.3t to have hundreds of thousands of miles on them either. The 351 I got from my brother had over 200k miles on it and still had the cross-hatching on the cylinder walls when I pulled the heads off. Hell, I even got 270,000 miles out of the 3.8 and C5 in my '85.

2) The full-frame G-bodies rusted out just as bad, if not worse, than any Fox car. The rear frames would rot badly. Body mounts would rot. Rear bumpers would actually fall off because the frame it was bolted to disappeared. Body-wise, rear quarters, doors, and fenders were about par with Ford's foxes (though I still believe the G-body floors were worse for rotting than the Foxes). Ditto with interior quality.

How Rare?

Reply #20 – November 15, 2008, 08:44:19 PM

Chicken,
Wasn't the '78/'79 Olds 442 available with a 4-bbl 350? I seem to remember seeing some kind of article stating that there was only 1 or 2 years that a 350 could be had in a ('78-'88 generation) Cutlass, and maybe only 1 year that a 4-bbl was available.

Yes, the Olds Diesel 350 came out in each of the 4 flavors of GM G-bodies of that era, I'm pretty sure. A couple months ago I actually saw an ~'84 Grand Prix on Ebay with a diesel 350, and that was a first. I guess I always thought it was just an Oldsmobile thing. I suppose you could have a diesel Cutlass, Regal, Grand Prix, or Monte Carlo. And I know I've seen lots of 260-powered Cutlasses. That was a pretty wimpy motor. My grandpa's '79 Delta 88 4-door had one, and it would pretty much just get the car rolling and up to some speed if you had the time.

Fordman3

How Rare?

Reply #21 – November 15, 2008, 09:16:47 PM

442 feet from the designers desk to the engineering floor where the shop was.
why- there was a problem with what to call this thing because of how the alphabetical names were drawn that year as well as oldsmobile was answering the call of a high perfromance vehicle to present the public with. 442 stuck.

Maybe i was high at the time the show was on (unlikly)per my last post on this but I saw and heard right from the horses mouth who designed and engineered the vehicle the reasoning behind the name.

Even I feel odd typing this because if anyone else would, id say bs. But since i saw it in 1990 on what i think was car and driver, I never forgot it because I remember liking those cars back then.

How Rare?

Reply #22 – November 15, 2008, 10:06:15 PM

Quote

A few problems with your reasons:

1) Oldsmobile stopped using the 350 in G-bodies in the late 70's, around the same time Ford stopped using its even torquier 351M and 400 in the T-Birds. All 80's G-bodies were powered by a Chevy (229) or Buick (231) V6, Pontiac 301 (I believe only in the LeMans, and only 79-80), a Chevy 267 or 305, or an Olds 307. There were probably a few Olds diesels in there, too, but no "Rockets". All of these engines except the turbocharged 231 were carbureted, compared to Ford's across-the-board electronic fuel injection. As for reliability, it's not uncommon to see Ford's 302 and 2.3t to have hundreds of thousands of miles on them either. The 351 I got from my brother had over 200k miles on it and still had the cross-hatching on the cylinder walls when I pulled the heads off. Hell, I even got 270,000 miles out of the 3.8 and C5 in my '85.

2) The full-frame G-bodies rusted out just as bad, if not worse, than any Fox car. The rear frames would rot badly. Body mounts would rot. Rear bumpers would actually fall off because the frame it was bolted to disappeared. Body-wise, rear quarters, doors, and fenders were about par with Ford's foxes (though I still believe the G-body floors were worse for rotting than the Foxes). Ditto with interior quality.

My best friend in High School (I graduated in '00) had an '84 Monte Carlo. It was a nice car, seemed a little heavier and maybe slightly sturdier built than my T-bird. However my 5.0 Thunderbird would absolutely walk the dog on his 305. We raced too many times to count and I wooped him every time. His car rode cushy and looked good with nice interior but mine handled and performed waaaay better. He ended up getting rid of it because the rear part of the frame was rotted out, even though the rest of the car was rust free.

There was also a kid in a neighboring town with a '80's Monte with a souped up V6 (I believe it had the 4.3?) and I could out run him easily. You used to see several nice G-bodies around here. A kids mom had a mid-80's 442 (very sharp), a girl in my high school had a SS Monte with a souped up 350, a local bodyman had a nice '85 Regal, etc. but these days the few you see seem to be white trashed out piles...

Those 305's must have been pretty weak because I used to whip up on another kids IROC Camaro all the time too.

How Rare?

Reply #23 – November 15, 2008, 11:17:55 PM

If you don't believe me that build quality and sturdiness don't affect resale values, just look in our own "family". Compare the values of a Fox Stang and a Fox Bird. The bird is built way better, but the equivalent stang will bring lots more money because.... more guys want them. It's supply and demand.[/QUOTE]

How are the thunderbirds built better? They are essentially the same, with just a foot and a half extra on the back.

How Rare?

Reply #24 – November 15, 2008, 11:41:02 PM

Quote from: fordman3;243207

Chicken,

Yes, the Olds Diesel 350 came out in each of the 4 flavors of GM G-bodies of that era, I'm pretty sure. A couple months ago I actually saw an ~'84 Grand Prix on Ebay with a diesel 350, and that was a first. I guess I always thought it was just an Oldsmobile thing. I suppose you could have a diesel Cutlass, Regal, Grand Prix, or Monte Carlo.
Fordman3

Yup, I've seen 350 Diesels in all those and in the Malibu... Also avail in the full size models(EX wife's sis had a Chevy Caprice with the kero burner) Was a popular option in the Caddies as well, lots of Sevilles had them... I owned two Cutlasses, a '80 Brougham and a '81 SW with Diesels...

How Rare?

Reply #25 – November 15, 2008, 11:41:51 PM

Quote from: jpc647;243227

How are the thunderbirds built better? They are essentially the same, with just a foot and a half extra on the back.

You are mostly correct, I probably didn't choose my words carefully enough. Structurally, the fox stangs and birds are similar. However, if you look at their interior quality and features, the birds are far superior. Something has to be better. Look at the original factory prices around 1988 too. The turbo birds were around $17K and GT Mustangs were around $12K. That's almost 50% more for the bird when new and look at the prices today. The Mustang will most likely bring more, not from me, but from most people it will.

How Rare?

Reply #26 – November 16, 2008, 01:52:16 AM

Forget the 442 and get one of these. Have you ever heard of this? It's a 79 Pontiac Grand Prix with a factory 301 and a Saginaw 4 speed. I would love to have one of those. Talk about something rare. :hick:

They were also available in 78-79 Monte Carlos.

How Rare?

Reply #27 – November 17, 2008, 10:40:08 PM

I remember in an Auto Trader a few years back seeing a '78/'79 Grand Prix with a V8 and a 3-speed manual that they claimed was original and very rare. Yeah, I'd love to have any stick-shift G-body. Did Olds or Buick offer one?

Fordman3

How Rare?

Reply #28 – November 17, 2008, 10:45:38 PM

my buddys dad has a hurst olds cutlass, its got this funky ass 3 shifter set up its sick
car has like 20k original miles its AMAZING clean